4 ms·

3) Interviewer assumes he has skills to evaluate candidates's approach.

by rimliu 6y ago

lmilcin 6y ago
The post is about candidates' failings, presumably to help them. The failings of interviewers are whole other, not less interesting, story. As to your point, it is completely misplaced in that list which is list of problems with my candidates. When I interview candidates I am expected to do my job which is to treat the candidate humanely and give back quality, actionable feedback. Why wouldn't I be able to evaluate candidate's approach? Can he solve the problem? If his approach is so good I can't understand it why then he wasn't able to solve the problem? Why would that happen on a problem I chose? When I put up a problem for my candidate I have already solved it in every imaginable way so I know ins and outs of every possible solution. I do that so that I can stop focusing on the approach and focus on the candidate because that is ultimately my task. I can imagine the candidate providing another solution but why wouldn't I be able to even evaluate the solution if I have spent so much effort on relatively simple problem already? It is also important to understand, that the job of the interviewer is not to approve every good candidate. The job is to prevent bad candidates from getting hired. It is expected that some good candidates will be lost in the process and it is acceptable, because hiring a bad candidate is much, much worse than loosing a good one. If you loose a good candidate you have a queue of other candidates so the worst that will happen is you will spend a little bit more on acquisition and maybe make a little suboptimal decision. If you hire bad candidate you are tied to him/her for a long time and usually have to expend huge amount of resources before the candidate is finally let go or maybe while he/she stays indefinitely, blocking your ability to find better candidate.

3) Interviewer assumes he has skills to evaluate candidates's approach.

by rimliu 6y ago

3) Interviewer assumes he has skills to evaluate candidates's approach.

The post is about candidates' failings, presumably to help them. The failings of interviewers are whole other, not less interesting, story. As to your point, it is completely misplaced in that list which is list of problems with my candidates. When I interview candidates I am expected to do my job which is to treat the candidate humanely and give back quality, actionable feedback. Why wouldn't I be able to evaluate candidate's approach? Can he solve the problem? If his approach is so good I can't understand it why then he wasn't able to solve the problem? Why would that happen on a problem I chose? When I put up a problem for my candidate I have already solved it in every imaginable way so I know ins and outs of every possible solution. I do that so that I can stop focusing on the approach and focus on the candidate because that is ultimately my task. I can imagine the candidate providing another solution but why wouldn't I be able to even evaluate the solution if I have spent so much effort on relatively simple problem already? It is also important to understand, that the job of the interviewer is not to approve every good candidate. The job is to prevent bad candidates from getting hired. It is expected that some good candidates will be lost in the process and it is acceptable, because hiring a bad candidate is much, much worse than loosing a good one. If you loose a good candidate you have a queue of other candidates so the worst that will happen is you will spend a little bit more on acquisition and maybe make a little suboptimal decision. If you hire bad candidate you are tied to him/her for a long time and usually have to expend huge amount of resources before the candidate is finally let go or maybe while he/she stays indefinitely, blocking your ability to find better candidate.