5 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 Sleaker 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.
Maybe this is because the interviewee feels partly abused, as if communication isn't a two-way street. I think interviews would be less terrible if interviewers actually told you at the end that you did above/aswell as/below expectations, and/or why instead of just waiting 1-2 weeks before getting back to you and then telling you that you are/aren't moving on to the next step. A huge part of the interview process produces emotional ups/downs that no one wants to deal with and which ostracize potential employees, but the interviewers don't really do much to help with this.
I also think that having a 1-4 range is not a good guide for gathering sweeping datasets. Adding any amount of numbers will help to show actually how much. Or actually using human language to define them would be better. 1) Terrible/Unhirable. 2) Unhirable/Not Passing 3) Passing 4) Exemplar would actually be beneficial right now arbitrary numbering doesn't help to give people much context as to what they should choose, and the numbers are so close that you're going to get outliers where maybe some people think that a 2 is passable but not great, and interviewer thinks 3 is passable but not great, or vice-versa.
- fecak 10y ago>I think interviews would be less terrible if interviewers actually told you at the end that you did above/as well as/below expectations This happens quite often in phone interviews. My clients have regularly told candidates "We'll be inviting you in" at the end of a phone interview. The issue with this for on-site interviews is that they tend to be with multiple individuals/groups, and getting those groups together to discuss the candidate's performance while the candidate is still on-site is a mess logistically. It would be ideal, but usually there will need to be some discussions among the panels.
- bcbrown 10y ago> usually there will need to be some discussions among the panels. The way we've handled that (startup, ~30 devs) is that the VP of Engineering goes last, and will go around getting quick reactions from everyone on the loop. If everyone says "I'm all for hiring", the VP will go ahead and let the candidate know we'll be making an offer. If anyone says "I'd like to discuss", then we don't give feedback until after getting together to discuss the candidate.
- fecak 10y agoThat's a solid idea, so long as the VP trusts the devs' judgement and ability to make a decision on something this important quickly. The one issue I see with this is that you'd need the "I'm all for hiring" to essentially mean "Not a single red flag - perfect candidate", which I'd assume must be the case. There are lots of positives in providing that immediate positive feedback - showing the ability to make a quick decision, organization, and not least making the candidate feel wanted right away.