4 ms·
I have been on the other side of this. I didn't cancel the return flight, but I was sorely tempted. In my case it was the early days of a company, and I flew a
by sago 8y ago
I have been on the other side of this. I didn't cancel the return flight, but I was sorely tempted.
In my case it was the early days of a company, and I flew a potentially important applicant from Europe for an interview, paid for hotel, food etc. They performed terribly. When I sat down with them to figure out why, it quickly became apparent they had fundamentally misrepresented themselves. Partially through lies, even more through slippery worded deceit. They finally admitted to being basically a starting-out developer, skilled at attaching themselves to high-profile projects and claiming this work as their own.
I did talk to our lawyer about trying to recover the costs. They told me he wasn't worth the lawsuit.
It was a learning experience. I did things differently after that. In the same way one would change one's behaviour after being the victim of any con.
So I do wonder what the other side to this particular story is.
- magduf 8y agoThis is the cost of doing business, and indeed is the entire point of interviewing candidates for jobs. Would you have preferred to pay full relocation for the guy and give him the job without any interview, and then find out a week or two after he starts that he's incompetent or has misrepresented himself?
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- derekp7 8y agoIs there anything that could have been different in the phone interview or skype video that would have exposed this earlier? Or is it too easy for such a candidate to cheat when remote? Was also wondering what is in it for the candidate -- if they know that they are going to flunk the on-site interview, do they just want a free vacation out of it?
- philwelch 8y agoA free one-day vacation where you have to spend most of the day doing job interviews is a shitty vacation.
- sago 8y ago> Is there anything that could have been different I certainly changed the questions I asked. And it never happened again. But I also think wilful deceit isn't that common (massaging the truth is, but this was a different league to that). So who knows if my changes were effective, or if it just felt good doing something. > if they know that they are going to flunk the on-site interview I really don't think he did. I think he thought he could charm his way to the job.
- nunez 8y agoFlying an interviewer in assumes this risk. You have to be okay with the fact that you might fly in a dud. It happens, especially if you're an early company lean on resources and don't know what to look or. Unless they are a national security risk of some kind (imagine, lol), there shouldn't ever be a reason to fly someone in and having them pay their own way back.
- sago 8y agoI agree. I have decided not to employ people on the basis of a final on-site interview, with no hard feelings. If that isn't a realistic prospect, I struggle to see what that interview is for. But there is a difference between a dud and a con man. There is a reason I only sought legal advice over one of them. In the end I did assume the risk and learn from it. But if I had to pay out of pocket an additional payment at that point I would've refused. For that individual only.