8 ms·

What are they losing in this case? I don't see how a company is actually harmed by someone complaining about an interview. Unless you're trying to attract peopl

What are they losing in this case? I don't see how a company is actually harmed by someone complaining about an interview. Unless you're trying to attract people who subscribe to cancel culture, I don't see a problem.

kenhwang 7y ago
Employee hours. Someone has to collect, document, sanitize, and explain the feedback. Then respond to the response to the feedback. In the time it takes our recruiter to provide feedback to a candidate, they could have sourced 20 more candidates. edit: I'll argue instant feedback is even more expensive and risky. It's not coordinated, potentially duplicative, may impact/contaminate later rounds, and may not be complete or representative of the interview as a whole. Engineers aren't known for being naturally HR/legal-compliant, and having multiple expensive engineers spend time doing things not in their typical skillset that's typically done by a single resource that specializes in said skillset doesn't sound cheaper at all.
- mixmastamyk 7y ago
  The article recommends instant feedback, presumably much less costly.
- eropple 7y ago
  They've only disrupted their day to talk to you, in many cases having done these increasingly-prevalent and always-bullshit 4+-hour "exercises", and they have way less time to be allocating than you do. That's all they've done. Their time isn't deserving of respect and it's just downright ridiculous to think that it's the decent thing to do to tell them something that might, just might, not make it a waste for them to have spent it. ...Or, you know. Don't be that guy. Candidate, candidate, candidate--depersonalizing language for depersonalized processes. How about person? These are people you're talking about. They matter more than your recruiter's cattle-call throughput, each and every one of them. Have some empathy, my dude. Or at least some enlightened self-interest, for someday will be your day in the barrel.
  - kenhwang 7y ago
    Interviewing is a business transaction, not social services. They'll min-max their time just like you'll mix-max your compensation. I'll happily give advice, feedback, mock interviews, and other sorts of help on my own time in more appropriate environments. When it's company time, it's just business.
    - eropple 7y ago
      You can rationalize how you'd like, but it's never "just business." These are people you're talking about. They matter more than your company does. Be decent.
      - kenhwang 7y ago
        They're getting a prompt, professional, inoffensive response in exchange for their time. That is decency. You can't expect a business to feed the hungry, cure the sick, and house the poor out of the goodness of their hearts because these are people that spent a couple hours of their day with you. There are more appropriate institutions for charity.
        Apocryphon 7y ago
        Perhaps the easiest business-oriented solution to this mess is to simply comp applicants for investing their time in interviews with a company. At least then there isn’t the sentiment of having wasted time.
        eropple 7y ago
        This is an excellent suggestion that treats people as people and as professionals whose time is valuable. It would, of course, never happen, because those same employers fear of what might happen if they granted the same respect they demand, but I admire your lateral thinking.
        eropple 7y ago
- Apocryphon 7y ago
  On the other hand, by giving good feedback, your company engenders goodwill and brownie points ratings on Glassdoor and elsewhere. Shouldn’t good PR be worth a little work from a company?
  - justforyou 7y ago
    Companies that are that concerned about PR spin their situation with actual PR.
    - Apocryphon 7y ago
      Word of mouth is also a thing.
- wwweston 7y ago
  > Someone has to collect, document, sanitize, and explain the feedback. Either something like this is being up collected and articulated up through the decision points in the hiring process, or the decisions are being made on a fuzzy basis that can't even be explained internally, which presumably represents a risk that decisions couldn't be properly justified should a candidate suspect discrimination and pursue a claim. (This is especially true for any kind of exercises, btw. If an employer asks me to do some, I am going to screen them on whether they have (a) complete reference solutions with (b) numbers on how long it took to complete each and why they're confident those numbers are reliable(c) a written rubric for evaluating candidate solutions that (d) they'll agree to share with me when we're done.)
  - kenhwang 7y ago
    Considering most of the interview is evaluation of soft skills and unique backgrounds there's almost certainly fuzzy basis.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

kenhwang 7y ago

Employee hours. Someone has to collect, document, sanitize, and explain the feedback. Then respond to the response to the feedback. In the time it takes our recruiter to provide feedback to a candidate, they could have sourced 20 more candidates. edit: I'll argue instant feedback is even more expensive and risky. It's not coordinated, potentially duplicative, may impact/contaminate later rounds, and may not be complete or representative of the interview as a whole. Engineers aren't known for being naturally HR/legal-compliant, and having multiple expensive engineers spend time doing things not in their typical skillset that's typically done by a single resource that specializes in said skillset doesn't sound cheaper at all.

mixmastamyk 7y ago
The article recommends instant feedback, presumably much less costly.
eropple 7y ago
They've only disrupted their day to talk to you, in many cases having done these increasingly-prevalent and always-bullshit 4+-hour "exercises", and they have way less time to be allocating than you do. That's all they've done. Their time isn't deserving of respect and it's just downright ridiculous to think that it's the decent thing to do to tell them something that might, just might, not make it a waste for them to have spent it. ...Or, you know. Don't be that guy. Candidate, candidate, candidate--depersonalizing language for depersonalized processes. How about person? These are people you're talking about. They matter more than your recruiter's cattle-call throughput, each and every one of them. Have some empathy, my dude. Or at least some enlightened self-interest, for someday will be your day in the barrel.
- kenhwang 7y ago
  Interviewing is a business transaction, not social services. They'll min-max their time just like you'll mix-max your compensation. I'll happily give advice, feedback, mock interviews, and other sorts of help on my own time in more appropriate environments. When it's company time, it's just business.
  - eropple 7y ago
    You can rationalize how you'd like, but it's never "just business." These are people you're talking about. They matter more than your company does. Be decent.
    - kenhwang 7y ago
      They're getting a prompt, professional, inoffensive response in exchange for their time. That is decency. You can't expect a business to feed the hungry, cure the sick, and house the poor out of the goodness of their hearts because these are people that spent a couple hours of their day with you. There are more appropriate institutions for charity.
      - Apocryphon 7y ago
        Perhaps the easiest business-oriented solution to this mess is to simply comp applicants for investing their time in interviews with a company. At least then there isn’t the sentiment of having wasted time.
        eropple 7y ago
        This is an excellent suggestion that treats people as people and as professionals whose time is valuable. It would, of course, never happen, because those same employers fear of what might happen if they granted the same respect they demand, but I admire your lateral thinking.
      - eropple 7y ago
Apocryphon 7y ago
On the other hand, by giving good feedback, your company engenders goodwill and brownie points ratings on Glassdoor and elsewhere. Shouldn’t good PR be worth a little work from a company?
- justforyou 7y ago
  Companies that are that concerned about PR spin their situation with actual PR.
  - Apocryphon 7y ago
    Word of mouth is also a thing.
wwweston 7y ago
> Someone has to collect, document, sanitize, and explain the feedback. Either something like this is being up collected and articulated up through the decision points in the hiring process, or the decisions are being made on a fuzzy basis that can't even be explained internally, which presumably represents a risk that decisions couldn't be properly justified should a candidate suspect discrimination and pursue a claim. (This is especially true for any kind of exercises, btw. If an employer asks me to do some, I am going to screen them on whether they have (a) complete reference solutions with (b) numbers on how long it took to complete each and why they're confident those numbers are reliable(c) a written rubric for evaluating candidate solutions that (d) they'll agree to share with me when we're done.)
- kenhwang 7y ago
  Considering most of the interview is evaluation of soft skills and unique backgrounds there's almost certainly fuzzy basis.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]