3 ms·

I completely don't understand interviewers who like to haze the candidates. When I interview a candidate, I'm rooting for him or her. My employer has already

by jerzyt 7y ago

I completely don't understand interviewers who like to haze the candidates. When I interview a candidate, I'm rooting for him or her. My employer has already invested time and money in the candidate, I have invested the time to study the resume and prepare relevant questions. My interviews are pretty challenging for the candidates, but I try to make the atmosphere friendly.

gumby 7y ago
They don't care and feel unappreciated. So here's an opportunity to feel better. Who cares if the company needs someone? Sadly I've even seen this from a company founder who felt that as the company grew they were no longer the "big kahuna" and felt a need to make up for it by showing off in an interview. (experiences as a co-interviewer not candidate)
- eru 7y ago
  They should channel their showing off into displaying how awesome and sociable and good with candidates they are..
  - gumby 7y ago
    if only. A nd they should be glad to be able to work with such smart and solid folks so everything doesn't rest on their shoulders. The most fun organizations are where everyone is glad to be working with all those other people and things everyone else is smarter than them (so with a lot of opportunities to learn). Organizations like that really do exist -- I've worked in a bunch, but the larger the organization gets the harder that is to maintain. But when a founder is doing this it poisons the well right away.
coffeefirst 7y ago
Because they're not interviewing people, they're playing the role of interviewer that they once saw on TV. The goal of the interview is not to subject someone to a test, it's to become informed about them and their abilities to do the job. The industry has this weird defensive position where everyone believes there's an army of imposters trying to invade them, and it's become a complete parody of itself.
chaboud 7y ago
Both hazing and cheerleading are bad. The value of a sunk cost is zero. Who cares what you invested into the process so far? It's time to make the best judgment you can for the benefit of your organization. If you learn that the previous investment was misspent, great. Refine the process for next time. You should also be providing a positive candidate experience if possible. They may be a customer, have friends you want to hire, or be in an anti-loop and actually good (but you can't tell, and that's okay, because, well, it happens). You're there to (in order): 1) make the best judgment for the organization 2) represent the company well for the candidate (hopefully this is a faithful representation, since you can't work long term for the company if you're tricking the candidate) It sounds like you do this already, since your interviews are challenging and friendly. Hopefully they're discriminating at and below job level to allow you to inform a hiring decision. Friendly almost always makes sense (excepting for threatening, dangerous, illegal, or otherwise red flag interviews). Some houses cut bad interviews short at a halfway point. We don't. The candidate might show you something later in the day that points to another position or area of strength, and, either way, they should feel like they got a fair shake. It also helps with cross-calibration. I've had two candidates that I would have walked out at other companies (less than 1%) at the halfway point. 2-3 incremental person-hours is almost always worth it, though. I'm glad we put in the effort.
- gwbas1c 7y ago
  > Some houses cut bad interviews short at a halfway point. We don't. There's pros and cons. For on-site, there's a point where you just don't want to waste time. When I run an interview, if it's clear early on that a candidate is a no, I'll just move the interview along quickly so I don't hurt feelings.
- atoav 7y ago
  Cheerleading certainly is bad, but I think candidates should receive a similar level of guidance to what they will receive in the final job (unless they work in isolation or the bad corporate culture needs to be emulated for aome reasons). Generally the focus of someone hiring should be on the position they are hiring for, and they should actively ask themselves how the candidate with their own specific character traits and skills would cope in that position. For this the person conducting the interview needs a profound understanding of the open position, which requires work that is often not done — and this results in lazy trick questions and ultimately gets the wrong people hired. Just like in a scientific measurement the person "measuring" the candidate needs to be aware of their own influence. And while taking of half of the stack of applications, throwing them into the bin and pronouncing that you don't like unlucky people certainly reduces your workload, it also reduces your chances of getting the best candidate.

by jerzyt 7y ago

gumby 7y ago

They don't care and feel unappreciated. So here's an opportunity to feel better. Who cares if the company needs someone? Sadly I've even seen this from a company founder who felt that as the company grew they were no longer the "big kahuna" and felt a need to make up for it by showing off in an interview. (experiences as a co-interviewer not candidate)

eru 7y ago
They should channel their showing off into displaying how awesome and sociable and good with candidates they are..
- gumby 7y ago
  if only. A nd they should be glad to be able to work with such smart and solid folks so everything doesn't rest on their shoulders. The most fun organizations are where everyone is glad to be working with all those other people and things everyone else is smarter than them (so with a lot of opportunities to learn). Organizations like that really do exist -- I've worked in a bunch, but the larger the organization gets the harder that is to maintain. But when a founder is doing this it poisons the well right away.

coffeefirst 7y ago

Because they're not interviewing people, they're playing the role of interviewer that they once saw on TV. The goal of the interview is not to subject someone to a test, it's to become informed about them and their abilities to do the job. The industry has this weird defensive position where everyone believes there's an army of imposters trying to invade them, and it's become a complete parody of itself.

chaboud 7y ago

Both hazing and cheerleading are bad. The value of a sunk cost is zero. Who cares what you invested into the process so far? It's time to make the best judgment you can for the benefit of your organization. If you learn that the previous investment was misspent, great. Refine the process for next time. You should also be providing a positive candidate experience if possible. They may be a customer, have friends you want to hire, or be in an anti-loop and actually good (but you can't tell, and that's okay, because, well, it happens). You're there to (in order): 1) make the best judgment for the organization 2) represent the company well for the candidate (hopefully this is a faithful representation, since you can't work long term for the company if you're tricking the candidate) It sounds like you do this already, since your interviews are challenging and friendly. Hopefully they're discriminating at and below job level to allow you to inform a hiring decision. Friendly almost always makes sense (excepting for threatening, dangerous, illegal, or otherwise red flag interviews). Some houses cut bad interviews short at a halfway point. We don't. The candidate might show you something later in the day that points to another position or area of strength, and, either way, they should feel like they got a fair shake. It also helps with cross-calibration. I've had two candidates that I would have walked out at other companies (less than 1%) at the halfway point. 2-3 incremental person-hours is almost always worth it, though. I'm glad we put in the effort.

gwbas1c 7y ago
> Some houses cut bad interviews short at a halfway point. We don't. There's pros and cons. For on-site, there's a point where you just don't want to waste time. When I run an interview, if it's clear early on that a candidate is a no, I'll just move the interview along quickly so I don't hurt feelings.
atoav 7y ago
Cheerleading certainly is bad, but I think candidates should receive a similar level of guidance to what they will receive in the final job (unless they work in isolation or the bad corporate culture needs to be emulated for aome reasons). Generally the focus of someone hiring should be on the position they are hiring for, and they should actively ask themselves how the candidate with their own specific character traits and skills would cope in that position. For this the person conducting the interview needs a profound understanding of the open position, which requires work that is often not done — and this results in lazy trick questions and ultimately gets the wrong people hired. Just like in a scientific measurement the person "measuring" the candidate needs to be aware of their own influence. And while taking of half of the stack of applications, throwing them into the bin and pronouncing that you don't like unlucky people certainly reduces your workload, it also reduces your chances of getting the best candidate.