6 ms·

>some portion of interviewees are losing interest in joining your company just because they didn’t think they did well, despite the fact that they actually did.

by fecak 10y ago

>some portion of interviewees are losing interest in joining your company just because they didn’t think they did well, despite the fact that they actually did. This is the key takeaway for me. This is IMO and experience probably based on a "sour grapes" type defense mechanism, where candidates will internally try to talk themselves out of wanting a job that they felt they didn't get. They walk out of the interview feeling they didn't perform, and instead of regretting the lost opportunity they start to focus on even the most minute "negatives" about the job/company. The more time you give a candidate to stew about those reasons they don't want the job, the more time they'll have to find reasons that may not even exist. Positive feedback should be given almost instantly. Some companies and candidates are reluctant to give positive feedback quickly because they feel it may hurt their negotiation leverage. I don't have data on this, but anecdotally (over almost 20 years in recruiting) I've seen this countless times while collecting post-interview feedback from candidates. The ones that feel they did poorly are likely to mention a negative about the interviewer or company, which becomes somewhat awkward when we come back with a job offer.

Yhippa 10y ago
I absolutely judge a company by the interview process and the questions they ask. "Would I want to work for a company where the employees pass their given process?"
- fecak 10y ago
  >I absolutely judge a company by the interview process and the questions they ask. And rightfully so. The term these days is "candidate experience" for the overall interview process, which can include everything from a company's handling of logistics and time spent in a waiting room to the types of questions being asked. That said, what I'm referring to in my comment isn't necessarily related to the interview process at all. A candidate can be asked questions that he/she felt were relevant and entirely fair for the job at hand, yet if he/she performed poorly there is still a tendency to try and find flaws in the overall opportunity. My reference wasn't to candidates performing poorly and thus giving a bad review to the interview process. Rather, the candidate might perform poorly and say that the vacation time was inadequate or the commute would have been too long.
- nsxwolf 10y ago
  A company's bad interview process might have nothing at all to do with the rest of the company. At this point, isn't it generally accepted that all tech interviewing sucks, and companies would do better throwing darts at resumes? If all interviewing is bad, and all companies are not bad, there's no benefit to judging a company based on that process.
  - kasey_junk 10y ago
    All tech interviewing does not suck, just most. A company that had a good hiring process would definitely have gone a long way to selling me on working there.
  - CaptSpify 10y ago
    I wouldn't 100% base my acceptance of a job on an interview, but I would use it as one of many factors. Were they on time to the interview? Did it seem like a good culture fit for me? Do they seem positive about working there? Was the interview full of poor communication? or confused looks?
  - marblar 10y ago
    > A company's bad interview process might have nothing at all to do with the rest of the company. Everyone who works at a company, got there by passing through the] interview filter. A bad interview process has everything to do with the company, particularly in organizations that have grown a lot in the recent past.
    - coredog64 10y ago
      Yes and no. I have a large contingent of coworkers from another local firm that is shedding workers. As these are usually referrals, they either get a softball process or a rubber stamp.
    - Maultasche 10y ago
      At the company I work for, most of the employers were hired based on the strength of referrals from existing employees. The very first employees were people that the founders knew personally and thought highly of. I never had an interview because several of the employees had worked with me before and knew me. My first contact with the company was when they told me they wanted to hire me and extended an offer. I was very surprised by that because they hadn't even seen my resume or anything. That method of hiring seems to have worked out pretty well so far for employee hiring and retention. The employees we've been getting seem to be quite competent and stick around. At the time I was interviewing with another company who seemed interested in me, but expressed a deep suspicion of new hires after having been burned in the past, and told me outright that they were skeptical of me, and that I could very well turn out to be lazy and unproductive. After three interviews in three weeks, they still hadn't made any offer. So when another company comes along unsolicited and asks me to join them because they know I'm good at what I do, I took their offer. When a company demonstrates that they value you, you're going want to work for them instead of the one that doesn't. There are a few people at my current company that were hired with an interview based on the company needing skills that weren't available from referrals from employees, but that's uncommon. I don't even know if our company has any sort of standard interview process.
- wpietri 10y ago
  When I was at Code for America I redid their hiring process to optimize for interviewee experience rather than hiring manager experience. One of the things that really struck me at the time was that traditional interview processes are built around a notion of worker surplus and job scarcity. They make very little sense when the opposite condition applies. Even little things like contacting all applicants within 24 hours really wowed people.
  - unimpressive 10y ago
    One of the things I've noticed is that scammers (ask for your SSN/birthday/etc, bad sales jobs, etc) are the most attentive with callbacks and 'hiring'. Because it's all they do and they actually optimize their hiring for applicant satisfaction.
  - vonmoltke 10y ago
    I agree with you, but here's the thing. If the vast majority of companies are running like that and succeeding, does that not suggest that there really is a workeer surplus and job scarcity, and that impressions to the contrary are self-imposed?
    - vertex-four 10y ago
      Well, all it really shows is that the "market" in this instance is incredibly inefficient. People need jobs, and if the vast majority of companies have a poor interview process, and 1% have a good one, assuming that this is the only thing that people care about (it's not), all that's going to happen is the 1% get the employees they want, and the other 99% still get some employees. The market is likely inefficient for the same reason that the advertising industry is inefficient - difficulty to show than any given change independently improves outcomes.
    - wpietri 10y ago
      For some jobs, sure. But what I really think it suggests is a power asymmetry. A company can do without 1 worker much more easily than a worker can do without 1 job. Plus, current processes let hiring managers feel powerful. Given the high percentage of hiring managers who are social primates, I expect that's a big factor. In tech, though, you hear endless complaints about how hard it is to hire, so I didn't hesitate to optimize the process for interviewee happiness. I expect it would make people more likely to apply, more likely to stay through the process, more likely to accept an offer, and more likely to refer friends. Regardless, there's enormous waste to be removed from the process for anybody who's willing to put a little thought and work in.
mhurron 10y ago
> This is IMO and experience probably based on a "sour grapes" type defense mechanism It's not just going to be 'sour grapes' but also going to be preparing themselves for the rejection they now believe is coming. They're making it so they're not surprised when it shows up or when they don't hear back. They're also making themselves more open to other offers instead of focusing on this one.
nsxwolf 10y ago
>some portion of interviewees are losing interest in joining your company just because they didn’t think they did well, despite the fact that they actually did. Wait. They think they didn't do well, got an offer, but turned it down because they think they didn't do well on the interview?
- skybrian 10y ago
  I think the idea is that they think they didn't do well, decide that on second thought, they don't really want the job anyway, and move on to the next possible opportunity. Then if later they get an offer, they don't change their mind.
- trjordan 10y ago
  Yep. They had a bad experience during the interview. When they ask themselves "how do I feel about this company?", their main data point is negative.
- semi-extrinsic 10y ago
  No, that's not what he said. After they think they didn't do well, people subconsciously start looking for reasons why they don't want to work there anyway: commute is bad, maybe they won't fit the culture, no free lunches etc.
- fecak 10y ago
  Usually, in my experience anyway, it doesn't get that far. The blog post just refers to interviewees saying "I wouldn't want to work with the interviewer" when they mistakenly feel that they did poorly in the interview. Anecdotally from the real world, when I (headhunter) get feedback from a candidate shortly/immediately after an interview, if they feel they did poorly they tend to add that there were things they didn't like about the opportunity (a person, the office, something). People that feel they did well don't usually go negative as easily. But I also go back to the employer and get their feedback ASAP, and when that comes back positive I immediately pass that message to the candidate. Assuming the employer's feedback is somewhat prompt, the candidate doesn't get too much opportunity to go negative, and once they "feel wanted" by the employer they usually trend back positive. Offers come shortly thereafter.
ryoshu 10y ago
My current employer has a great way of giving feedback about this. If you like the candidate her something along the lines of, "I really enjoyed our conversation." It's not a commitment to anything, but as you move through the process you know that you are doing well. For candidates who don't do well? Thank them for the time and move on.
8_hours_ago 10y ago
The company I work at has a good solution to this. We fly candidates out for an onsite interview and at the end of the day, if we decide we want to hire them, we give them an offer in person. Our goal is to get them to verbally accept before they head back home.
- amorphid 10y ago
  Kind of high pressure, no?
  - 8_hours_ago 10y ago
    We don't pressure them, just give them the offer and continue to sell the company. It isn't like we hold the door shut until they accept :)
    - fecak 10y ago
      I'd be curious what percentage accept/reject on the spot, but I'd never ask a candidate to provide an answer either way if you present an offer right away. It's too important a decision for them not to at least take the night (especially after a day of interviews, a flight/hotel stay, an impending flight home). Even suggesting an immediate answer feels salesy ('whaddya think?'), and I'd think we'd see better results by presenting the offer and saying "take this home with you and get back to us when you're ready". This approach should also tend to reduce counteroffer acceptances or accept/renege scenarios.
      - amorphid 10y ago
        I like asking the question, "if we were to extend you an offer you like, would you accept it?" It's not perfect, but I haven't of a better approach that isn't pushy.
        fecak 10y ago
        How about "Is there anything in your situation right now that would prevent you from accepting a solid competitive offer?" That's a little less salesy IMO.
latimer 10y ago
That quote reminded me of something my mentor told me when I was training to interview people in-person. He said if they're really struggling, change it up with an easy question for exactly the reason you gave, but also to get their confidence up so they don't start the next interview feeling bad.
mcv 10y ago
My wife is currently in this situation. She's not a new job seeker by any means; she does mid-to-high-level management, leading complex projects. She recently applied for a new job that she's really enthusiastic about, but with them not responding, she's rapidly losing interest. She would be a perfect fit, but lack of a timely HR response could cost them a good employee. Of course lack of a timely response also reflects badly on the company, so that could also be a very valid reason for people to lose interest.

by fecak 10y ago

Yhippa 10y ago

I absolutely judge a company by the interview process and the questions they ask. "Would I want to work for a company where the employees pass their given process?"

fecak 10y ago
>I absolutely judge a company by the interview process and the questions they ask. And rightfully so. The term these days is "candidate experience" for the overall interview process, which can include everything from a company's handling of logistics and time spent in a waiting room to the types of questions being asked. That said, what I'm referring to in my comment isn't necessarily related to the interview process at all. A candidate can be asked questions that he/she felt were relevant and entirely fair for the job at hand, yet if he/she performed poorly there is still a tendency to try and find flaws in the overall opportunity. My reference wasn't to candidates performing poorly and thus giving a bad review to the interview process. Rather, the candidate might perform poorly and say that the vacation time was inadequate or the commute would have been too long.
nsxwolf 10y ago
A company's bad interview process might have nothing at all to do with the rest of the company. At this point, isn't it generally accepted that all tech interviewing sucks, and companies would do better throwing darts at resumes? If all interviewing is bad, and all companies are not bad, there's no benefit to judging a company based on that process.
- kasey_junk 10y ago
  All tech interviewing does not suck, just most. A company that had a good hiring process would definitely have gone a long way to selling me on working there.
- CaptSpify 10y ago
  I wouldn't 100% base my acceptance of a job on an interview, but I would use it as one of many factors. Were they on time to the interview? Did it seem like a good culture fit for me? Do they seem positive about working there? Was the interview full of poor communication? or confused looks?
- marblar 10y ago
  > A company's bad interview process might have nothing at all to do with the rest of the company. Everyone who works at a company, got there by passing through the] interview filter. A bad interview process has everything to do with the company, particularly in organizations that have grown a lot in the recent past.
  - coredog64 10y ago
    Yes and no. I have a large contingent of coworkers from another local firm that is shedding workers. As these are usually referrals, they either get a softball process or a rubber stamp.
  - Maultasche 10y ago
    At the company I work for, most of the employers were hired based on the strength of referrals from existing employees. The very first employees were people that the founders knew personally and thought highly of. I never had an interview because several of the employees had worked with me before and knew me. My first contact with the company was when they told me they wanted to hire me and extended an offer. I was very surprised by that because they hadn't even seen my resume or anything. That method of hiring seems to have worked out pretty well so far for employee hiring and retention. The employees we've been getting seem to be quite competent and stick around. At the time I was interviewing with another company who seemed interested in me, but expressed a deep suspicion of new hires after having been burned in the past, and told me outright that they were skeptical of me, and that I could very well turn out to be lazy and unproductive. After three interviews in three weeks, they still hadn't made any offer. So when another company comes along unsolicited and asks me to join them because they know I'm good at what I do, I took their offer. When a company demonstrates that they value you, you're going want to work for them instead of the one that doesn't. There are a few people at my current company that were hired with an interview based on the company needing skills that weren't available from referrals from employees, but that's uncommon. I don't even know if our company has any sort of standard interview process.
wpietri 10y ago
When I was at Code for America I redid their hiring process to optimize for interviewee experience rather than hiring manager experience. One of the things that really struck me at the time was that traditional interview processes are built around a notion of worker surplus and job scarcity. They make very little sense when the opposite condition applies. Even little things like contacting all applicants within 24 hours really wowed people.
- unimpressive 10y ago
  One of the things I've noticed is that scammers (ask for your SSN/birthday/etc, bad sales jobs, etc) are the most attentive with callbacks and 'hiring'. Because it's all they do and they actually optimize their hiring for applicant satisfaction.
- vonmoltke 10y ago
  I agree with you, but here's the thing. If the vast majority of companies are running like that and succeeding, does that not suggest that there really is a workeer surplus and job scarcity, and that impressions to the contrary are self-imposed?
  - vertex-four 10y ago
    Well, all it really shows is that the "market" in this instance is incredibly inefficient. People need jobs, and if the vast majority of companies have a poor interview process, and 1% have a good one, assuming that this is the only thing that people care about (it's not), all that's going to happen is the 1% get the employees they want, and the other 99% still get some employees. The market is likely inefficient for the same reason that the advertising industry is inefficient - difficulty to show than any given change independently improves outcomes.
  - wpietri 10y ago
    For some jobs, sure. But what I really think it suggests is a power asymmetry. A company can do without 1 worker much more easily than a worker can do without 1 job. Plus, current processes let hiring managers feel powerful. Given the high percentage of hiring managers who are social primates, I expect that's a big factor. In tech, though, you hear endless complaints about how hard it is to hire, so I didn't hesitate to optimize the process for interviewee happiness. I expect it would make people more likely to apply, more likely to stay through the process, more likely to accept an offer, and more likely to refer friends. Regardless, there's enormous waste to be removed from the process for anybody who's willing to put a little thought and work in.

mhurron 10y ago

> This is IMO and experience probably based on a "sour grapes" type defense mechanism It's not just going to be 'sour grapes' but also going to be preparing themselves for the rejection they now believe is coming. They're making it so they're not surprised when it shows up or when they don't hear back. They're also making themselves more open to other offers instead of focusing on this one.

nsxwolf 10y ago

>some portion of interviewees are losing interest in joining your company just because they didn’t think they did well, despite the fact that they actually did. Wait. They think they didn't do well, got an offer, but turned it down because they think they didn't do well on the interview?

skybrian 10y ago
I think the idea is that they think they didn't do well, decide that on second thought, they don't really want the job anyway, and move on to the next possible opportunity. Then if later they get an offer, they don't change their mind.
trjordan 10y ago
Yep. They had a bad experience during the interview. When they ask themselves "how do I feel about this company?", their main data point is negative.
semi-extrinsic 10y ago
No, that's not what he said. After they think they didn't do well, people subconsciously start looking for reasons why they don't want to work there anyway: commute is bad, maybe they won't fit the culture, no free lunches etc.
fecak 10y ago
Usually, in my experience anyway, it doesn't get that far. The blog post just refers to interviewees saying "I wouldn't want to work with the interviewer" when they mistakenly feel that they did poorly in the interview. Anecdotally from the real world, when I (headhunter) get feedback from a candidate shortly/immediately after an interview, if they feel they did poorly they tend to add that there were things they didn't like about the opportunity (a person, the office, something). People that feel they did well don't usually go negative as easily. But I also go back to the employer and get their feedback ASAP, and when that comes back positive I immediately pass that message to the candidate. Assuming the employer's feedback is somewhat prompt, the candidate doesn't get too much opportunity to go negative, and once they "feel wanted" by the employer they usually trend back positive. Offers come shortly thereafter.

ryoshu 10y ago

My current employer has a great way of giving feedback about this. If you like the candidate her something along the lines of, "I really enjoyed our conversation." It's not a commitment to anything, but as you move through the process you know that you are doing well. For candidates who don't do well? Thank them for the time and move on.

8_hours_ago 10y ago

The company I work at has a good solution to this. We fly candidates out for an onsite interview and at the end of the day, if we decide we want to hire them, we give them an offer in person. Our goal is to get them to verbally accept before they head back home.

amorphid 10y ago
Kind of high pressure, no?
- 8_hours_ago 10y ago
  We don't pressure them, just give them the offer and continue to sell the company. It isn't like we hold the door shut until they accept :)
  - fecak 10y ago
    I'd be curious what percentage accept/reject on the spot, but I'd never ask a candidate to provide an answer either way if you present an offer right away. It's too important a decision for them not to at least take the night (especially after a day of interviews, a flight/hotel stay, an impending flight home). Even suggesting an immediate answer feels salesy ('whaddya think?'), and I'd think we'd see better results by presenting the offer and saying "take this home with you and get back to us when you're ready". This approach should also tend to reduce counteroffer acceptances or accept/renege scenarios.
    - amorphid 10y ago
      I like asking the question, "if we were to extend you an offer you like, would you accept it?" It's not perfect, but I haven't of a better approach that isn't pushy.
      - fecak 10y ago
        How about "Is there anything in your situation right now that would prevent you from accepting a solid competitive offer?" That's a little less salesy IMO.

latimer 10y ago

That quote reminded me of something my mentor told me when I was training to interview people in-person. He said if they're really struggling, change it up with an easy question for exactly the reason you gave, but also to get their confidence up so they don't start the next interview feeling bad.

mcv 10y ago

My wife is currently in this situation. She's not a new job seeker by any means; she does mid-to-high-level management, leading complex projects. She recently applied for a new job that she's really enthusiastic about, but with them not responding, she's rapidly losing interest. She would be a perfect fit, but lack of a timely HR response could cost them a good employee. Of course lack of a timely response also reflects badly on the company, so that could also be a very valid reason for people to lose interest.