4 ms·

Well, yes. The interviewee is supposed to impress the interviewer, not the other way around. The onus is on him to get hired. They're flooded with applicants. A

Well, yes. The interviewee is supposed to impress the interviewer, not the other way around. The onus is on him to get hired. They're flooded with applicants. A smart applicant can thrive in any system, no matter how bad - otherwise, they're not very smart. If you'd hire people based of how much they could lift, you'd see how the smart, driven, competent people coming in suddenly have much bigger muscles. The system is never broken. You are broken for failing to adapt to it. If you fail to adapt to it, there are hundreds willing to take your place.

dragonwriter 6y ago
> The interviewee is supposed to impress the interviewer, not the other way around. Interviews are two-sided auditions. If there was a genuine talent shortage as we keep hearing about, the asymmetry would be the other direction; while it would still be two-sided, the bigger burden would be on the interviewer as the representative of the prospective employer to impress the prospective employee.
yowlingcat 6y ago
The system is functioning as designed. But if you're implying that it can't be improved then I don't know if I agree with that. For instance, it might be possible that savvy candidates use interviews to vet whether they want to work there, because for every offer they get, there are hundreds more they could get (and often up to a dozen that they do get). If that is the case, then it's possible that a broken system could end up coming into existence in a company that: - has a revolving door of expensive attrition - loses all the good talent so that ones that remain aren't good at their jobs - slowly ossifies into place - can't seem to get things done - eventually loses its customers - loses market position, growth and relevance - becomes a bankrupted carcass eventually stripped for parts by a distressed asset firm Sounds familiar? I agree that if you fail to adapt to the system, there are hundreds willing to take your place. But where we may disagree is whether I'd envy any of them. I'll tell you one thing, though -- I've never had to sacrifice my career trajectory to just put up with this kind of nonsense. In fact, the places I've had to put up with it the most are the places where I've grown the least and leaving opened up a much better opportunity afterwards.

dragonwriter 6y ago

> The interviewee is supposed to impress the interviewer, not the other way around. Interviews are two-sided auditions. If there was a genuine talent shortage as we keep hearing about, the asymmetry would be the other direction; while it would still be two-sided, the bigger burden would be on the interviewer as the representative of the prospective employer to impress the prospective employee.

yowlingcat 6y ago

The system is functioning as designed. But if you're implying that it can't be improved then I don't know if I agree with that. For instance, it might be possible that savvy candidates use interviews to vet whether they want to work there, because for every offer they get, there are hundreds more they could get (and often up to a dozen that they do get). If that is the case, then it's possible that a broken system could end up coming into existence in a company that: - has a revolving door of expensive attrition - loses all the good talent so that ones that remain aren't good at their jobs - slowly ossifies into place - can't seem to get things done - eventually loses its customers - loses market position, growth and relevance - becomes a bankrupted carcass eventually stripped for parts by a distressed asset firm Sounds familiar? I agree that if you fail to adapt to the system, there are hundreds willing to take your place. But where we may disagree is whether I'd envy any of them. I'll tell you one thing, though -- I've never had to sacrifice my career trajectory to just put up with this kind of nonsense. In fact, the places I've had to put up with it the most are the places where I've grown the least and leaving opened up a much better opportunity afterwards.