3 ms·

> Then after the final interview (which seemed to have gone very well), I got an email saying "The role has been filled." I would guess that one of the many pe

by jemmyw 4y ago

> Then after the final interview (which seemed to have gone very well), I got an email saying "The role has been filled." I would guess that one of the many people you interviewed with decided they didn't like you. That would shut down the whole process and give you no meaningful explanation. I think it's an example of how hiring is really quite bad, hard and bears little relationship to performance.

gamblor956 4y ago
No, it means that he was just one of several people interviewed for the position, and either they liked someone else more, or they already had someone considering an offer when they interviewed him but were interviewing a backup in case the other candidate declined.
- jemmyw 4y ago
  I doubt that, for a big company there are always a bunch of roles. It would be unusual to get through the interview process successfully and then be dumped after they've made the effort because there was another good candidate. My experience with big companies, on both sides, is that they would make an effort to place someone.
KyeRussell 4y ago
There are a huge contingent of people whose idea of “performance” isn’t aligned with those around them. Given some of the absolutely terse personalities I see on HN sometimes, and the wider developer community, I always take these “I aced the interviews” stories with a grain of salt. I’ve certainly interviewed and ultimately rejected candidates who ace the technical component but have some other blatant showstopper.
- jemmyw 4y ago
  I do agree with you about people's attitude to how they did in technical tests. But I also think all interviewers having a veto is the wrong approach. However, I don't think companies really have time or inclination to do it any other way. I think I do well on both technical tests and the conversational side. I'm basing that on ratio of offers.
  - scarby2 4y ago
    > But I also think all interviewers having a veto is the wrong approach It's based on people assuming that others will use that veto reasonably. Company i work for had a veto system but i don't think it was ever used. It was also essentially 3 level system "hire", "probably not" and "i object to this person ever working at this company" I've heard the latter being expressed a few times but only with candidates that nobody was keen on.

by jemmyw 4y ago

gamblor956 4y ago

No, it means that he was just one of several people interviewed for the position, and either they liked someone else more, or they already had someone considering an offer when they interviewed him but were interviewing a backup in case the other candidate declined.

jemmyw 4y ago
I doubt that, for a big company there are always a bunch of roles. It would be unusual to get through the interview process successfully and then be dumped after they've made the effort because there was another good candidate. My experience with big companies, on both sides, is that they would make an effort to place someone.

KyeRussell 4y ago

There are a huge contingent of people whose idea of “performance” isn’t aligned with those around them. Given some of the absolutely terse personalities I see on HN sometimes, and the wider developer community, I always take these “I aced the interviews” stories with a grain of salt. I’ve certainly interviewed and ultimately rejected candidates who ace the technical component but have some other blatant showstopper.

jemmyw 4y ago
I do agree with you about people's attitude to how they did in technical tests. But I also think all interviewers having a veto is the wrong approach. However, I don't think companies really have time or inclination to do it any other way. I think I do well on both technical tests and the conversational side. I'm basing that on ratio of offers.
- scarby2 4y ago
  > But I also think all interviewers having a veto is the wrong approach It's based on people assuming that others will use that veto reasonably. Company i work for had a veto system but i don't think it was ever used. It was also essentially 3 level system "hire", "probably not" and "i object to this person ever working at this company" I've heard the latter being expressed a few times but only with candidates that nobody was keen on.