4 ms·

This. Help the person you're interviewing. You'll both get more out of it, you'll both enjoy it. If you're in a company that is expanding, you'll be interviewin

This. Help the person you're interviewing. You'll both get more out of it, you'll both enjoy it. If you're in a company that is expanding, you'll be interviewing a lot, so it's really important that it doesn't depress the shit out of you.

konschubert 5y ago
There is a risk that you accidentally do the thinking for them and give the answers for them without noticing. Doing a collaborative interview requires careful attention by the interviewer, but I agree it’s worth it.
- gspr 5y ago
  I mean, sure. Nobody said interviewing should be easy. Be attentive and focused as an interviewer too!
- ryanbrunner 5y ago
  So factor that into your judgement. If you needed to help them constantly, you still know they're a bad candidate. Nothing is gained by stonewalling them other than potentially getting someone who's going to badmouth you to everyone. I've definitely had interviews with solid candidates who just faced an early roadblock, but were brilliant after I gave them an early push. Sometimes that's more of a sign of communicating a question poorly or nerves than genuine lack of knowledge on the candidates part.
  - embik 5y ago
    This, so much. Interviews are very stressful for candidates, everyone should remember what it's like sitting on the other side. I've been doing a bit of technical interviewing and I usually try to help people along so they reach the "end" of the interview, especially if they're not doing too well. So many candidates sound defeated when they're struggling with a task and it's a form of respect for me. They've put themselves out there, after all. Treating candidates - which you know you are going to reject at some point of the interview - with dignity is the right thing to do and can go a long way when it comes to your company's reputation.
- atoav 5y ago
  That is the hard part of the job. You need to be able to take yourself out of the equation. If you can't do that, you are simply the wrong person for the job. Usually it is not hard to notice whether you'd like someone to succeed and then factor that in.
  - balls187 5y ago
    > Usually it is not hard to notice whether you'd like someone to succeed and then factor that in. What about the opposite, that you don't like someone, or worse, you are indifferent to their success?
    - atoav 5y ago
      Same thing. One of our main actors was once a guy I didn't like at all. But he was fantastic for the role and it turned out to be a good decision afterwards (despite him being complicated to handle, which we also factored in). Maybe the hard part is to get a HR person that cares about the outcome instead of their authority.
- raffraffraff 5y ago
  What happens in the real world when a colleague has a mental block? They Google it. If that doesn't help, they slack the team: "Hey guys, this is something stupid-simple that I can't bring to mind right now, but... <question>". Why should their interview be a stressful stone-walling event when life as an employee is not? Maybe an interview should have "Who wants to be a millionaire" lifelines. Two "Googgle"s, and an "ok, I give up - give me a hint".

konschubert 5y ago

There is a risk that you accidentally do the thinking for them and give the answers for them without noticing. Doing a collaborative interview requires careful attention by the interviewer, but I agree it’s worth it.

gspr 5y ago
I mean, sure. Nobody said interviewing should be easy. Be attentive and focused as an interviewer too!
ryanbrunner 5y ago
So factor that into your judgement. If you needed to help them constantly, you still know they're a bad candidate. Nothing is gained by stonewalling them other than potentially getting someone who's going to badmouth you to everyone. I've definitely had interviews with solid candidates who just faced an early roadblock, but were brilliant after I gave them an early push. Sometimes that's more of a sign of communicating a question poorly or nerves than genuine lack of knowledge on the candidates part.
- embik 5y ago
  This, so much. Interviews are very stressful for candidates, everyone should remember what it's like sitting on the other side. I've been doing a bit of technical interviewing and I usually try to help people along so they reach the "end" of the interview, especially if they're not doing too well. So many candidates sound defeated when they're struggling with a task and it's a form of respect for me. They've put themselves out there, after all. Treating candidates - which you know you are going to reject at some point of the interview - with dignity is the right thing to do and can go a long way when it comes to your company's reputation.
atoav 5y ago
That is the hard part of the job. You need to be able to take yourself out of the equation. If you can't do that, you are simply the wrong person for the job. Usually it is not hard to notice whether you'd like someone to succeed and then factor that in.
- balls187 5y ago
  > Usually it is not hard to notice whether you'd like someone to succeed and then factor that in. What about the opposite, that you don't like someone, or worse, you are indifferent to their success?
  - atoav 5y ago
    Same thing. One of our main actors was once a guy I didn't like at all. But he was fantastic for the role and it turned out to be a good decision afterwards (despite him being complicated to handle, which we also factored in). Maybe the hard part is to get a HR person that cares about the outcome instead of their authority.
raffraffraff 5y ago
What happens in the real world when a colleague has a mental block? They Google it. If that doesn't help, they slack the team: "Hey guys, this is something stupid-simple that I can't bring to mind right now, but... <question>". Why should their interview be a stressful stone-walling event when life as an employee is not? Maybe an interview should have "Who wants to be a millionaire" lifelines. Two "Googgle"s, and an "ok, I give up - give me a hint".