3 ms·

Part of what's problematic about this interviewing approach is that while your (secret) internal mindset may be "I'll accept pretty much any viable answer", the

by variety 16y ago

Part of what's problematic about this interviewing approach is that while your (secret) internal mindset may be "I'll accept pretty much any viable answer", the full-court-press interviewing style effects the exact opposite impression on the candidate -- they're left thinking, "gosh, I have to get this right, dammit, no room for slack, can't leave out any details AT ALL or it's back to another month of ramen and job boards trolling." So yes, with your interviewing technique (orthogonal to the technical content of the question itself) you've succeeded in conveying a stance and mindset that is quite literally the opposite of what you intended.

jholman 16y ago
Is "full-court press" and "your interviewing technique" from personal experience with the OP? Or just from reading the article? Because all I got from the article is that he has lots and lots of follow-up directions. I.e., that he is prepared.
- variety 16y ago
  From the article. The flip side of the fact that the interviewer has had time to carefully prepare while the interviewee has not is that what you get from that inherently contrived, lopsided discussion, kind of a long, drawn-out game of "gotcha." Fun for the <strike>interrogator</strike> interviewer, but tedious and buzz-killing for the interviewee. It provides insight, yes, but a certain cost: many candidates fine this approach simply alienating, and more to the point, it upsets their thought processes (such that they don't really get a chance to shine). As a candidate you can train for this kind of confrontational approach, of course, but I think lrm242 nailed what's most alienating about this interviewing style -- that ultimately the candidate is put into a position that's basically uncomfortable to be in, where they have to _placate_ their interlocuter according to some hidden criteria set -- and mostly they just want that particular thread to be overwith as soon as possible. I just think we can get the same insight into candidates from different ways, where things are more on an even keel, and there's more "flow."[1] It takes more tact and creativity (and perhaps a bit more time), but it's not that hard, is more mutually enjoyable and (I think) ultimately provides a lot more insight. [1] "flow" being of course a very important concept; e.g. in the sense of Murakami.

by variety 16y ago

jholman 16y ago

Is "full-court press" and "your interviewing technique" from personal experience with the OP? Or just from reading the article? Because all I got from the article is that he has lots and lots of follow-up directions. I.e., that he is prepared.

variety 16y ago
From the article. The flip side of the fact that the interviewer has had time to carefully prepare while the interviewee has not is that what you get from that inherently contrived, lopsided discussion, kind of a long, drawn-out game of "gotcha." Fun for the <strike>interrogator</strike> interviewer, but tedious and buzz-killing for the interviewee. It provides insight, yes, but a certain cost: many candidates fine this approach simply alienating, and more to the point, it upsets their thought processes (such that they don't really get a chance to shine). As a candidate you can train for this kind of confrontational approach, of course, but I think lrm242 nailed what's most alienating about this interviewing style -- that ultimately the candidate is put into a position that's basically uncomfortable to be in, where they have to _placate_ their interlocuter according to some hidden criteria set -- and mostly they just want that particular thread to be overwith as soon as possible. I just think we can get the same insight into candidates from different ways, where things are more on an even keel, and there's more "flow."[1] It takes more tact and creativity (and perhaps a bit more time), but it's not that hard, is more mutually enjoyable and (I think) ultimately provides a lot more insight. [1] "flow" being of course a very important concept; e.g. in the sense of Murakami.