3 ms·

I’ve noticed an increasing number of candidates using this kind of “take control of the interview” approach. It’s reached the point of having candidates talking

I’ve noticed an increasing number of candidates using this kind of “take control of the interview” approach. It’s reached the point of having candidates talking over top of me during phone screens trying to wrest control of the conversation away. I’ve never hired someone who does this. I’m not interested in how you’re going to rework my team or rewrite our software. Interestingly, when interviewing potential peers or CEOs, I’m kind of expecting them to do this.

rc_mob 9y ago
Article says to politely take control. Seems like your candidates forgot the polite part of the equation.
- watwut 9y ago
  Taking control and insisting on it is not polite, unless you the boss. It is pretty bad trait for college in cooperative environment.
  - pc86 9y ago
    I've been out of college for ten years this month and I can still remember those few students who could not get it through their head that class was not a one-on-one conversation between them and the instructor.
    - Ensorceled 9y ago
      My favourite professor: “I’m glad you found my paper on Chaos Theory interesting but my Numerical Methods class is not the place to discuss it. Please stop interrupting me.”
davnicwil 9y ago
I think that's because it's very hard to get this strategy right. In some interviews, it may not be possible due to the way the interview process is set up, and in particular the magnitude of information asymmetry. I think getting it right hinges on two things: 1) Does the interviewer actually have a concrete objective that you are qualified to help them achieve -- even if they themselves aren't necessarily aware of it or have it top of mind. 2) Can you identify that objective either ahead of time or in the interview process, and in a polite yet direct manner convince them that you can help them achieve it. If neither of these are true, it is bound to come off poorly. Whiteboard/puzzle based 'general intelligence assessment' style interviews don't lend themselves to this. Wishy washy job descriptions don't lend themselves to this. Hiring processes influenced by politics rather than need (i.e. where a manager is disincentivised to hire someone better than they are) don't lend themselves to this. If a majority of candidates who try this strategy with you aren't able to pull it off well, perhaps step back and take a look at your recruitment/interview processes and see if you could actually help the good ones impress you. I'm not saying I've done this right in the past, quite the contrary. For me the ideal interview is me simply describing a problem my team has, and the interviewee educating me on how to solve it and why they are the right person to do so (though usually the fact they are able to do the former implies the latter). I've tried to format interviews more like this over time and I have personally found better results as a consequence.
- Ensorceled 9y ago
  Exactly, if we’re in the “how would you solve this problem” or “tell me a time when” phase, knock yourself out and be assertive. When I’m giving my 10 second description of my phone screen process works and I get interrupted to be told “this phone screen will be done differently” ...
emeraldd 9y ago
You bringing up a very important distinction here. When hiring someone to lead it is extremely important for that person to naturally fall into that role. When hiring someone to do the work that needs to be done, you want them to be able to understand what they are supposed to do, offer alternatives if they think there's something wrong, but ultimately do what needs to be done. Taking control in that second situation isn't necessarily a good thing.
pc86 9y ago
If you're applying for jobs where you'll be sitting a cubicle and doing the work assigned to you (no matter how much experience, creativity, or leadership that may take) trying to lead the interview by going over all the things you'll do is idiotic. Like another commenter said, if you do this in a SWE II-level interview at a Big 4/5, it's probably not going to end the way you want it to. The article uses football coaches as an example for a reason. This sort of interview tactic works when a major component of your job is leadership and inspiration. If you're judged in whole or part on the success of other people, this probably works. If you're judged based on how many JIRA tickets you close you should probably not be trying to run your interview.

rc_mob 9y ago

Article says to politely take control. Seems like your candidates forgot the polite part of the equation.

watwut 9y ago
Taking control and insisting on it is not polite, unless you the boss. It is pretty bad trait for college in cooperative environment.
- pc86 9y ago
  I've been out of college for ten years this month and I can still remember those few students who could not get it through their head that class was not a one-on-one conversation between them and the instructor.
  - Ensorceled 9y ago
    My favourite professor: “I’m glad you found my paper on Chaos Theory interesting but my Numerical Methods class is not the place to discuss it. Please stop interrupting me.”

davnicwil 9y ago

I think that's because it's very hard to get this strategy right. In some interviews, it may not be possible due to the way the interview process is set up, and in particular the magnitude of information asymmetry. I think getting it right hinges on two things: 1) Does the interviewer actually have a concrete objective that you are qualified to help them achieve -- even if they themselves aren't necessarily aware of it or have it top of mind. 2) Can you identify that objective either ahead of time or in the interview process, and in a polite yet direct manner convince them that you can help them achieve it. If neither of these are true, it is bound to come off poorly. Whiteboard/puzzle based 'general intelligence assessment' style interviews don't lend themselves to this. Wishy washy job descriptions don't lend themselves to this. Hiring processes influenced by politics rather than need (i.e. where a manager is disincentivised to hire someone better than they are) don't lend themselves to this. If a majority of candidates who try this strategy with you aren't able to pull it off well, perhaps step back and take a look at your recruitment/interview processes and see if you could actually help the good ones impress you. I'm not saying I've done this right in the past, quite the contrary. For me the ideal interview is me simply describing a problem my team has, and the interviewee educating me on how to solve it and why they are the right person to do so (though usually the fact they are able to do the former implies the latter). I've tried to format interviews more like this over time and I have personally found better results as a consequence.

Ensorceled 9y ago
Exactly, if we’re in the “how would you solve this problem” or “tell me a time when” phase, knock yourself out and be assertive. When I’m giving my 10 second description of my phone screen process works and I get interrupted to be told “this phone screen will be done differently” ...

emeraldd 9y ago

You bringing up a very important distinction here. When hiring someone to lead it is extremely important for that person to naturally fall into that role. When hiring someone to do the work that needs to be done, you want them to be able to understand what they are supposed to do, offer alternatives if they think there's something wrong, but ultimately do what needs to be done. Taking control in that second situation isn't necessarily a good thing.

pc86 9y ago

If you're applying for jobs where you'll be sitting a cubicle and doing the work assigned to you (no matter how much experience, creativity, or leadership that may take) trying to lead the interview by going over all the things you'll do is idiotic. Like another commenter said, if you do this in a SWE II-level interview at a Big 4/5, it's probably not going to end the way you want it to. The article uses football coaches as an example for a reason. This sort of interview tactic works when a major component of your job is leadership and inspiration. If you're judged in whole or part on the success of other people, this probably works. If you're judged based on how many JIRA tickets you close you should probably not be trying to run your interview.