5 ms·
> The fact that your employee was able to do the test might be indicative of the fact that you share context with the employee that you did not share with the c
by Lio 5y ago
> The fact that your employee was able to do the test might be indicative of the fact that you share context with the employee that you did not share with the candidate, thus confirming your bias.
This! When giving interviews last I really worried if the questions I asked where just indicative of my own Dunning-Kruger effect.
i.e. Do I only ask questions I already know the answer to and not questions I don't know the answer to?
If I do then am I just filtering for people with the same background and knowledge and missing out on people with other skills I don't know, because they're in my blind spot, I need yet?
- magnetic 5y ago> i.e. Do I only ask questions I already know the answer to and not questions I don't know the answer to? I've been advocating for a "coding interview" where both the interviewer _and_ interviewee draw some random question from leetcode or other problem bank, and try to work at it together. This would show collaboration skills, and you can tell pretty easily how helpful the candidate is with his/her contributions, and whether you find there is an impedance mismatch somewhere. It probably also maps more closely to the kinds of interactions you'd have after the person's been hired. I think it would also help calibrate: if you can't figure it out, is it fair to expect the candidate to figure it out? Maybe it's just a hard problem!