3 ms·

He gave it and failed the candidate. After which the CEO personally and profusely apologized to the candidate. And offered a hefty per-diem consulting fee in

by vanusa 7y ago

He gave it and failed the candidate. After which the CEO personally and profusely apologized to the candidate. And offered a hefty per-diem consulting fee in compensation for this cynical (if not outright juvenile) waste of their precious, irreplaceable time. Right?

Thorrez 7y ago
I don't see why the CEO needs to be involved. Why not have the recruiter apologize to the candidate and offer another interview? Candidates know that there is always a chance they will be rejected for reasons outside their control (e.g. there was only 1 opening and a better candidate applied), so if the candidate agreed to the interview without a consulting fee, I don't think it's necessary to give one.
- vanusa 7y ago
  Why not have the recruiter apologize to the candidate and offer another interview? When it's a minor screw-up -- sure, have the recruiter apologize. When it's a major fuck-up of this scale -- reflective of both arrogance and incompetence on the company's side -- then the CEO needs to apologize. It's really quite simple actually.
  - Thorrez 7y ago
    In my view the CEO is for major business decisions and company direction. I don't see a single interview with a too-hard question being that. Any large company will be conducting hundreds of interviews with too-hard questions every day. I've seen many blog posts about them on HN. I see it as mostly ignorance on the part of a single interviewer. Every large company has lots of ignorance. People aren't perfect.
    - vanusa 7y ago
      I don't see a single interview with a too-hard question being that. It wasn't a matter of a "too-hard" question. But of a recklessly and arrogantly posed question.
      - Thorrez 7y ago
        The arrogance here seems to be from misjudging the difficulty of the question. That is, it seems largely rooted in ignorance. As for reckless, there's a wide variety of how much time people will spend preparing a question before an interview. Some people will spend days preparing a question. Others will just pick something off a list and ask it. I don't think everyone would agree that just thinking of a question is reckless. We also don't know how much time sethammons's coworker was given to prepare. Maybe he was told about the interview Monday evening, and had to conduct it Tuesday morning.
        vanusa 7y ago
        The arrogance here seems to be from misjudging the difficulty of the question. I see it as coming from a mindset that says it's OK to pull some "nifty" problem out of his head at the last minute -- in this case, literally between lathering his toe jam and rinsing his buttcrack -- and feed it to candidates without having it properly vetted first. Or even, for that matter, sitting down and thinking about it for a couple of seconds. To me at least -- right off the bat, the core assumption they made about this problem was highly suspect, just from the fundamentals. In short - they didn't just make a mistake; they were throwing caution to the wind. On the basis of an apparent view that candidates are a dime a bushel, and their time is more or less infinitely expendable. That is - the mindset that so many companies following the current penchant for on-the-spot technical interviewing seem deeply beholden to.

by vanusa 7y ago

Thorrez 7y ago

I don't see why the CEO needs to be involved. Why not have the recruiter apologize to the candidate and offer another interview? Candidates know that there is always a chance they will be rejected for reasons outside their control (e.g. there was only 1 opening and a better candidate applied), so if the candidate agreed to the interview without a consulting fee, I don't think it's necessary to give one.

vanusa 7y ago
Why not have the recruiter apologize to the candidate and offer another interview? When it's a minor screw-up -- sure, have the recruiter apologize. When it's a major fuck-up of this scale -- reflective of both arrogance and incompetence on the company's side -- then the CEO needs to apologize. It's really quite simple actually.
- Thorrez 7y ago
  In my view the CEO is for major business decisions and company direction. I don't see a single interview with a too-hard question being that. Any large company will be conducting hundreds of interviews with too-hard questions every day. I've seen many blog posts about them on HN. I see it as mostly ignorance on the part of a single interviewer. Every large company has lots of ignorance. People aren't perfect.
  - vanusa 7y ago
    I don't see a single interview with a too-hard question being that. It wasn't a matter of a "too-hard" question. But of a recklessly and arrogantly posed question.
    - Thorrez 7y ago
      The arrogance here seems to be from misjudging the difficulty of the question. That is, it seems largely rooted in ignorance. As for reckless, there's a wide variety of how much time people will spend preparing a question before an interview. Some people will spend days preparing a question. Others will just pick something off a list and ask it. I don't think everyone would agree that just thinking of a question is reckless. We also don't know how much time sethammons's coworker was given to prepare. Maybe he was told about the interview Monday evening, and had to conduct it Tuesday morning.
      - vanusa 7y ago
        The arrogance here seems to be from misjudging the difficulty of the question. I see it as coming from a mindset that says it's OK to pull some "nifty" problem out of his head at the last minute -- in this case, literally between lathering his toe jam and rinsing his buttcrack -- and feed it to candidates without having it properly vetted first. Or even, for that matter, sitting down and thinking about it for a couple of seconds. To me at least -- right off the bat, the core assumption they made about this problem was highly suspect, just from the fundamentals. In short - they didn't just make a mistake; they were throwing caution to the wind. On the basis of an apparent view that candidates are a dime a bushel, and their time is more or less infinitely expendable. That is - the mindset that so many companies following the current penchant for on-the-spot technical interviewing seem deeply beholden to.