3 ms·
Bad interviews make for bad hires. Bad hires can cost a company more than not hiring at all. Whenever I've conducted interviews in the past, I've gone out of m
by robgibbons 6y ago
Bad interviews make for bad hires. Bad hires can cost a company more than not hiring at all.
Whenever I've conducted interviews in the past, I've gone out of my way to help the candidates relax. Need to use Google? Go ahead, I do literally all the time. Need some advice, something explained? Just ask, that's why we have peers. Nobody writes code on a whiteboard, with no docs, with three people watching, silently taking notes.
Interviews should reflect the environment within which the job is actually done, and allow the candidate to demonstrate what they're good at, instead of treating them like a circus animal jumping through hoops, giving them performance anxiety.
For my most recent job, they circumvented my interview entirely and just did a few days of contract work instead. That way the company gets usable work, the candidate gets paid, and it filters out those who can interview really well but may not be a good company fit.
- northern-lights 6y ago>Bad interviews make for bad hires. Bad hires can cost a company more than not hiring at all. But is that really true? There are plenty of companies who take a Fire Better approach (Amazon, Netflix to name a few) who seem to be doing just fine.
- wolco 6y agoNot being able to tell if it's a bad hire is the core problem for the rest.
- el_benhameen 6y agoWorth noting that, at least as far as I've heard, the pressure on employees in at least some roles at the two companies you mentioned is incredibly stressful. I would rather have an interview without undue stress than a stressful one, but I'd rather have a stressful interview than continuous stress on the job. (I am differentiating here between "working on difficult problems" stress and "always wondering if you're going to get canned" stress.)