3 ms·

I didn't comment on whether it's smart or not. That would be an impossible assessment considering NDAs can be completely different. I only expressed the sentime

I didn't comment on whether it's smart or not. That would be an impossible assessment considering NDAs can be completely different. I only expressed the sentiment that in some industries it is a common practice and not some unheard of red flag. In my case, it was a non-issue because it meant the people I was talking to were able to share more detailed information about their product, letting me make an informed decision about whether I wanted to work on that thing or not. Not being able to talk about the proprietary tech of a company I'm interviewing for was not a deal-breaker to me.

warrenm 4y ago
I cut to the fact that it's not smart to do this If a company wants me to sign an NDA to interview, they're not worth working for Pure and simple
- drakonka 4y ago
  I think it's a very valid preference to have, but I'm not sure how cutting out potentially interesting companies to work is by default any smarter than signing any NDA blindly. Edit: I changed my mind; signing an NDA blindly is less smart because there's more chance of legal issue. So if it was just a binary choice between signing blindly or rejecting every company asking for an NDA outright, the latter would be smarter. Luckily, it isn't a binary choice. Absolutely refusing any notion of an NDA during the interview process is then cutting out potentially interesting information one can use in their decision about the role (or just in their personal knowledge bank, even if they don't proceed). Proprietary information does not get any less proprietary in the interview stage than after you accept an offer, so why does it make any less sense for a company to ask for for an NDA if they intend on sharing that information with a candidate?
  - warrenm 4y ago
    >so why does it make any less sense for a company to ask for for an NDA if they intend on sharing that information with a candidate? Because if a company doesn't know how to do an interview without the use of an NDA, they're not worth working for It's quite possible to conduct very productive interviews without them - indeed, everywhere I've ever seen that requires them does nothing "interesting", and they're a waste of time to even talk to
    - drakonka 4y ago
      Of course it's possible to conduct interviews without giving out sensitive info, but the fact that it's possible doesn't really answer the question of why it's so bad to conduct interviews the other way. Personally, I'd much rather my interviewers be able to speak plainly about what they're building. As an interviewer it is less stressful and as an interviewee I've found it more interesting. Since I don't particularly crave going out and telling the world about proprietary information I might learn from an interview anyway, an NDA is no skin off my back. Rjecting a company outright just by nature of them wanting an NDA doesn't seem like a "smarter" default option at all.
      - warrenm 4y ago
        >doesn't really answer the question of why it's so bad to conduct interviews the other way Easy - if you think you have to divulge "company secrets" to do an interview, you're blatantly incompetent I've been at this a long time - >20y I never need to divulge "company secrets" (or "customer secrets", given I'm in professional services) to perform an interview on either side of the equation
        drakonka 4y ago
        Thank you, I've been at it for a fairly long time also. I'm not totally sure how your reply relates to my comment, since my first sentence says: "Of course it's possible to conduct interviews without giving out sensitive info..." Nobody's arguing that anybody absolutely _needs_ to divulge "company secrets". I'm simply saying freedom to say and show more rather than less can make for a more interesting interview.
      - warrenm 4y ago
        >Rjecting a company outright just by nature of them wanting an NDA doesn't seem like a "smarter" default option at all Sorry you feel that way - truly, I feel sorry for you You've succumbed to the idea that the company is more important than you
        4y ago

warrenm 4y ago

I cut to the fact that it's not smart to do this If a company wants me to sign an NDA to interview, they're not worth working for Pure and simple

drakonka 4y ago
I think it's a very valid preference to have, but I'm not sure how cutting out potentially interesting companies to work is by default any smarter than signing any NDA blindly. Edit: I changed my mind; signing an NDA blindly is less smart because there's more chance of legal issue. So if it was just a binary choice between signing blindly or rejecting every company asking for an NDA outright, the latter would be smarter. Luckily, it isn't a binary choice. Absolutely refusing any notion of an NDA during the interview process is then cutting out potentially interesting information one can use in their decision about the role (or just in their personal knowledge bank, even if they don't proceed). Proprietary information does not get any less proprietary in the interview stage than after you accept an offer, so why does it make any less sense for a company to ask for for an NDA if they intend on sharing that information with a candidate?
- warrenm 4y ago
  >so why does it make any less sense for a company to ask for for an NDA if they intend on sharing that information with a candidate? Because if a company doesn't know how to do an interview without the use of an NDA, they're not worth working for It's quite possible to conduct very productive interviews without them - indeed, everywhere I've ever seen that requires them does nothing "interesting", and they're a waste of time to even talk to
  - drakonka 4y ago
    Of course it's possible to conduct interviews without giving out sensitive info, but the fact that it's possible doesn't really answer the question of why it's so bad to conduct interviews the other way. Personally, I'd much rather my interviewers be able to speak plainly about what they're building. As an interviewer it is less stressful and as an interviewee I've found it more interesting. Since I don't particularly crave going out and telling the world about proprietary information I might learn from an interview anyway, an NDA is no skin off my back. Rjecting a company outright just by nature of them wanting an NDA doesn't seem like a "smarter" default option at all.
    - warrenm 4y ago
      >doesn't really answer the question of why it's so bad to conduct interviews the other way Easy - if you think you have to divulge "company secrets" to do an interview, you're blatantly incompetent I've been at this a long time - >20y I never need to divulge "company secrets" (or "customer secrets", given I'm in professional services) to perform an interview on either side of the equation
      - drakonka 4y ago
        Thank you, I've been at it for a fairly long time also. I'm not totally sure how your reply relates to my comment, since my first sentence says: "Of course it's possible to conduct interviews without giving out sensitive info..." Nobody's arguing that anybody absolutely _needs_ to divulge "company secrets". I'm simply saying freedom to say and show more rather than less can make for a more interesting interview.
    - warrenm 4y ago
      >Rjecting a company outright just by nature of them wanting an NDA doesn't seem like a "smarter" default option at all Sorry you feel that way - truly, I feel sorry for you You've succumbed to the idea that the company is more important than you
      - 4y ago