3 ms·

I wish behaviour like this was weeded out in the interview process. It is really damaging to teams and productivity and I would estimate most people won't try t

I wish behaviour like this was weeded out in the interview process. It is really damaging to teams and productivity and I would estimate most people won't try to fix it like OP has tried.

interleave 4y ago
Interesting perspective. I can only speak for myself of course: The issue only happens in online meetings and probably only with specific teams. So, I would have "slipped through", if your interview process is in-person. It starts with the awareness in my opinion. There are people who talk a lot and enjoy dominating the conversation. I wrote an extensive FAQ on why Unblah is not for them. Those who (like me) talk a lot but are painfully aware – I think aren't extremely damaging. I hope.
- powerhour 4y ago
  It's probably more common as the person becomes more familiar with the group -- at least it is for me. That'll make it hard or impossible to identify during interviews. I've been trying not to speak at all during meetings, instead following up in chat. As a bonus, this means there's a searchable record of the details, and thus is far more valuable than any in person or video meeting could ever be.
  - interleave 4y ago
    > It's probably more common as the person becomes more familiar with the group -- at least it is for me. That'll make it hard or impossible to identify during interviews. Agreed. > I've been trying not to speak at all during meetings, instead following up in chat. How does that work? I mean, interpersonally?
    - powerhour 4y ago
      I've always been on small teams so I think it works ok, but I guess it could be an unfair burden for my coworkers. Maybe I should ask.
- gardenhedge 4y ago
  You're someone who has recognised it and built a tool using the skills you have. I doubt you are damaging to a team at all! In fact, it's impressive.
shankr 4y ago
Yeah I feel like I am suffering with this with my teammates. How passive aggressive it would be if I shared this with my colleagues at work?
- interleave 4y ago
  To answer your question without knowing any context: I would err on the side of it being received as rather passive aggressive. I do not recommend using the app (especially not without context) as a proxy for a difficult conversation that may have to happen. Since the question came up earlier, here is my full take on this situation: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32097859 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32097859
- TameAntelope 4y ago
  Depending on how you did it, you could be quite “aggressive”! “Dave, found the perfect app for you!” is aggressive. “Wow I might start using this app!” Is better.
  - shankr 4y ago
    > “Wow I might start using this app!” Is better. Yeah I thought about going this way.
- vorpalhex 4y ago
  Try talking with them instead. Use mediation, not a proxy.
  - gardenhedge 4y ago
    The colleague talking seems to be the problem :) GP is supposed to mediate while at work while their colleague is talking in circles?
    - vorpalhex 4y ago
      Yes, that is literally how you solve interpersonal problems. You pull the person aside and discuss the problem.
nvr219 4y ago
No way. Interviews are totally different conversations than team meetings. And I would go so far as to say that if people talking too much is "really damaging to teams and productivity", that is a failure of the team leadership, and they should work on that with the offending participants. Online meeting social skills are important but a lot of people who are really good at their job don't have those skills (yet!)
- gardenhedge 4y ago
  In an agile/scrum context, what leadership is there in a team to do this? In scrum ceremonies, the scrum master should handle the direction of the meetings but lots of meetings/video calls happen outside these meetings.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
burntwater 4y ago
If I weeded people out based on their talking too much in Zoom meetings, I would lose a fair number of my best people. I don't think this would make it into the top 20 red flags to look for in an interview.
- gardenhedge 4y ago
  Out of curiosity, what would your top red flags be?
- ryandrake 4y ago
  To me, one of the most reliable ways to blow your interview is to just keep talking and talking, never providing any sort of re-entry window into the conversation for your interviewer. Double-bad if you are not actually answering the question, and just spouting your prepared speech. This happens so often that I think it must be something these unfortunate candidates are learning somewhere. Zoom makes this even worse than in person, as the software often won't even let you insert yourself into someone else's stream-of-consciousness word salad to help them course-correct.
  - jasongi 4y ago
    I would love it if interviews were structured in a way like it’s an actual conversation. Unfortunately a lot of companies treat them like a pop quiz, ask everyone the same 10 questions, which are mapped to 10 selection criteria and evaluate their 10 mostly prepared responses. Good interviewers will have a bunch of questions as prompts, but generally ask a lot of follow-ups. I blame the STAR method mostly, the concept that you have instant recall of past experiences in a high pressure situation, indexed by the questions the company is going to ask, is absolutely crazy. I wonder if there’s been any research into “tell me about a conflict and how you resolved it” type behavioural questions and whether they are effective. Even the most dramatic of employee knows how to tone it down, rewrite/make up scenarios to pass these types of questions.
skinnymuch 4y ago
Interviews are a very specific beast that is rarely duplicated in the work place besides when your butt is on the line in a conversation, which is still different.
rexpop 4y ago
Congratulations! You're committing the Fundamental Attribution Error[0]! Corporate meetings are traditionally structured to accommodate those who talk too much in meetings, but they could be structured differently. Deliberate facilitation, for example "taking stack"[1]," can help the puzzle pieces of panel of diverse personalities find their place in contributing maximally to the tasks at hand. Heck, sometimes it's as easy as setting expectations or as simple (albeit not necessarily easy) as establishing an environment of psychological safety[2] in which coworkers feel comfortable pushing back on antisocial behavior, eg asking "can you not interrupt me?" 0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error 1. https://techresources.shoestringcollective.com/collaborate/taking-stack/ https://techresources.shoestringcollective.com/collaborate/t... 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_safety https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_safety
- Kaze404 4y ago
  Interesting. I had no idea there was a name for this behavior. Thanks for the link.
- gardenhedge 4y ago
  Did you mean to reply to me? I am not committing the Fundamental Attribution Error.
  - rexpop 4y ago
    You sure are! Presuming that this behavior can be "weeded out" because it's a fundamental attribute of the candidate, rather than a behavioral response to the working environment is a perfect example of the error.
  - remram 4y ago
    I tend to agree with the parent. I am a rather shy person who did not naturally talk much during meetings and I had to train to be able to elaborate on simple questions for hiring interviews, because that is what is expected in the interview process. The goal of a hiring interview is to find out as much as possible about you, not to get yes/no answers to pointed questions, and making your interviewers come up with more and more questions to make you keep going is sure to leave a bad impression and cost you the job. People who talk at length during hiring interviews are not necessarily "people who talk at length in meetings", they are doing that because that's what hiring interviews are about. You are misattributing cause.
kerblang 4y ago
I imagine it would go like this: > Candidate answered all my questions thoroughly. Do not hire.

I wish behaviour like this was weeded out in the interview process. It is really damaging to teams and productivity and I would estimate most people won't try to fix it like OP has tried.

interleave 4y ago

Interesting perspective. I can only speak for myself of course: The issue only happens in online meetings and probably only with specific teams. So, I would have "slipped through", if your interview process is in-person. It starts with the awareness in my opinion. There are people who talk a lot and enjoy dominating the conversation. I wrote an extensive FAQ on why Unblah is not for them. Those who (like me) talk a lot but are painfully aware – I think aren't extremely damaging. I hope.

powerhour 4y ago
It's probably more common as the person becomes more familiar with the group -- at least it is for me. That'll make it hard or impossible to identify during interviews. I've been trying not to speak at all during meetings, instead following up in chat. As a bonus, this means there's a searchable record of the details, and thus is far more valuable than any in person or video meeting could ever be.
- interleave 4y ago
  > It's probably more common as the person becomes more familiar with the group -- at least it is for me. That'll make it hard or impossible to identify during interviews. Agreed. > I've been trying not to speak at all during meetings, instead following up in chat. How does that work? I mean, interpersonally?
  - powerhour 4y ago
    I've always been on small teams so I think it works ok, but I guess it could be an unfair burden for my coworkers. Maybe I should ask.
gardenhedge 4y ago
You're someone who has recognised it and built a tool using the skills you have. I doubt you are damaging to a team at all! In fact, it's impressive.

shankr 4y ago

Yeah I feel like I am suffering with this with my teammates. How passive aggressive it would be if I shared this with my colleagues at work?

interleave 4y ago
To answer your question without knowing any context: I would err on the side of it being received as rather passive aggressive. I do not recommend using the app (especially not without context) as a proxy for a difficult conversation that may have to happen. Since the question came up earlier, here is my full take on this situation: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32097859 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32097859
TameAntelope 4y ago
Depending on how you did it, you could be quite “aggressive”! “Dave, found the perfect app for you!” is aggressive. “Wow I might start using this app!” Is better.
- shankr 4y ago
  > “Wow I might start using this app!” Is better. Yeah I thought about going this way.
vorpalhex 4y ago
Try talking with them instead. Use mediation, not a proxy.
- gardenhedge 4y ago
  The colleague talking seems to be the problem :) GP is supposed to mediate while at work while their colleague is talking in circles?
  - vorpalhex 4y ago
    Yes, that is literally how you solve interpersonal problems. You pull the person aside and discuss the problem.

nvr219 4y ago

No way. Interviews are totally different conversations than team meetings. And I would go so far as to say that if people talking too much is "really damaging to teams and productivity", that is a failure of the team leadership, and they should work on that with the offending participants. Online meeting social skills are important but a lot of people who are really good at their job don't have those skills (yet!)

gardenhedge 4y ago
In an agile/scrum context, what leadership is there in a team to do this? In scrum ceremonies, the scrum master should handle the direction of the meetings but lots of meetings/video calls happen outside these meetings.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

burntwater 4y ago

If I weeded people out based on their talking too much in Zoom meetings, I would lose a fair number of my best people. I don't think this would make it into the top 20 red flags to look for in an interview.

gardenhedge 4y ago
Out of curiosity, what would your top red flags be?
ryandrake 4y ago
To me, one of the most reliable ways to blow your interview is to just keep talking and talking, never providing any sort of re-entry window into the conversation for your interviewer. Double-bad if you are not actually answering the question, and just spouting your prepared speech. This happens so often that I think it must be something these unfortunate candidates are learning somewhere. Zoom makes this even worse than in person, as the software often won't even let you insert yourself into someone else's stream-of-consciousness word salad to help them course-correct.
- jasongi 4y ago
  I would love it if interviews were structured in a way like it’s an actual conversation. Unfortunately a lot of companies treat them like a pop quiz, ask everyone the same 10 questions, which are mapped to 10 selection criteria and evaluate their 10 mostly prepared responses. Good interviewers will have a bunch of questions as prompts, but generally ask a lot of follow-ups. I blame the STAR method mostly, the concept that you have instant recall of past experiences in a high pressure situation, indexed by the questions the company is going to ask, is absolutely crazy. I wonder if there’s been any research into “tell me about a conflict and how you resolved it” type behavioural questions and whether they are effective. Even the most dramatic of employee knows how to tone it down, rewrite/make up scenarios to pass these types of questions.

skinnymuch 4y ago

Interviews are a very specific beast that is rarely duplicated in the work place besides when your butt is on the line in a conversation, which is still different.

rexpop 4y ago

Congratulations! You're committing the Fundamental Attribution Error[0]! Corporate meetings are traditionally structured to accommodate those who talk too much in meetings, but they could be structured differently. Deliberate facilitation, for example "taking stack"[1]," can help the puzzle pieces of panel of diverse personalities find their place in contributing maximally to the tasks at hand. Heck, sometimes it's as easy as setting expectations or as simple (albeit not necessarily easy) as establishing an environment of psychological safety[2] in which coworkers feel comfortable pushing back on antisocial behavior, eg asking "can you not interrupt me?" 0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error 1. https://techresources.shoestringcollective.com/collaborate/taking-stack/ https://techresources.shoestringcollective.com/collaborate/t... 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_safety https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_safety

Kaze404 4y ago
Interesting. I had no idea there was a name for this behavior. Thanks for the link.
gardenhedge 4y ago
Did you mean to reply to me? I am not committing the Fundamental Attribution Error.
- rexpop 4y ago
  You sure are! Presuming that this behavior can be "weeded out" because it's a fundamental attribute of the candidate, rather than a behavioral response to the working environment is a perfect example of the error.
- remram 4y ago
  I tend to agree with the parent. I am a rather shy person who did not naturally talk much during meetings and I had to train to be able to elaborate on simple questions for hiring interviews, because that is what is expected in the interview process. The goal of a hiring interview is to find out as much as possible about you, not to get yes/no answers to pointed questions, and making your interviewers come up with more and more questions to make you keep going is sure to leave a bad impression and cost you the job. People who talk at length during hiring interviews are not necessarily "people who talk at length in meetings", they are doing that because that's what hiring interviews are about. You are misattributing cause.

kerblang 4y ago

I imagine it would go like this: > Candidate answered all my questions thoroughly. Do not hire.