4 ms·

OTOH, I have known interviewers that would not pass an interviewee that asked no questions. Wasn't first-round interviews though.

jghn 3y ago
The only universal truth when it comes to interviews is that there are no universal truths. As an interviewee there is nothing you can do that will universally be read as a positive across all interviewers. There are so many contradictory rules among interviewers that you might as well not bother gaming the system and do what you want to do. Let the chips fall as they may. As an interviewer, no filter you put in place will give you a perfect read on what it's intended to test. For instance I know I have my quirks in terms of things that'll turn me off of a candidate based on resume alone. But I also recognize that many candidates are coached to do it this way in the first place. So I need to be conscious of this and try to not interpret these things as "shitty candidate"
- goostavos 3y ago
  >The only universal truth when it comes to interviews is that there are no universal truths. 100%. This is what makes me roll my eyes in all of these threads. Do enough interviews and you'll see people regularly dismissed for the most pretty and inane reasons. Hell, just the other day in one of these threads you had someone saying that they rejected a candidate because they said "bro" too much. No amount of interview prep, "They Hate This One Weird Trick" blogs, or hiring astrology will beat the fact that there are humans sitting on the other side of the table. And humans are weird and finicky
  - ghaff 3y ago
    >they rejected a candidate because they said "bro" too much It would depend on context but that would certainly trip alarm bells for me.
    - goostavos 3y ago
      Case in point, tbh
noirbot 3y ago
I do think I'd mark it against someone if I reserved 10-15 minutes at the end of an interview and they didn't have anything at all they wanted to know about the job or the company. I'm not expecting them to have a laundry list, but still. Or if you're not going to ask something, then have something to say at least. I'd rather you just go "No questions, since I assume this job pays me in money I can use to buy things?". Getting a new job is a big deal - either you're about to quit somewhere and presumably you're looking because you care about finding a new employer that's better on some axis than your current job, or you're out of work and desperate to take anything, which is fine as well, but if you don't want to just admit that, you should probably have some idea of what to say otherwise.
- dist-epoch 3y ago
  How many companies would actually answer the real questions people have? You might actually get red flagged. So they go to GlassDoor for those. And then you are left with "polite questions", fillers.
  - noirbot 3y ago
    It depends on the questions - I don't feel like I've often gotten bad answers when I've asked and I know I try my hardest to be as honest as possible when candidates ask me hard questions about my position. If I get red flagged for asking about their on-call policies or office-work plans or how they're handling the position/responsibilities that I would be taking on, then that seems like a bullet dodged? It's not like I'm expecting people to ask "So tell me about why you hate your manager" or "When was the last time you fired someone". You can ask probing but polite questions that give you information without having people tell you the sort of angry gossip you get on Glassdoor. Obviously, tailor this to how desperate you are. If you want absolutely zero chance anyone will reject you for any reason, then you should be asking the most fluffy questions you can. I certainly don't reject people for asking those questions. I just find it a weird signal when someone seemingly doesn't even want to pretend to care about content, structure, and culture of the job they're interviewing for.
  - macNchz 3y ago

jghn 3y ago

The only universal truth when it comes to interviews is that there are no universal truths. As an interviewee there is nothing you can do that will universally be read as a positive across all interviewers. There are so many contradictory rules among interviewers that you might as well not bother gaming the system and do what you want to do. Let the chips fall as they may. As an interviewer, no filter you put in place will give you a perfect read on what it's intended to test. For instance I know I have my quirks in terms of things that'll turn me off of a candidate based on resume alone. But I also recognize that many candidates are coached to do it this way in the first place. So I need to be conscious of this and try to not interpret these things as "shitty candidate"

goostavos 3y ago
>The only universal truth when it comes to interviews is that there are no universal truths. 100%. This is what makes me roll my eyes in all of these threads. Do enough interviews and you'll see people regularly dismissed for the most pretty and inane reasons. Hell, just the other day in one of these threads you had someone saying that they rejected a candidate because they said "bro" too much. No amount of interview prep, "They Hate This One Weird Trick" blogs, or hiring astrology will beat the fact that there are humans sitting on the other side of the table. And humans are weird and finicky
- ghaff 3y ago
  >they rejected a candidate because they said "bro" too much It would depend on context but that would certainly trip alarm bells for me.
  - goostavos 3y ago
    Case in point, tbh

noirbot 3y ago

I do think I'd mark it against someone if I reserved 10-15 minutes at the end of an interview and they didn't have anything at all they wanted to know about the job or the company. I'm not expecting them to have a laundry list, but still. Or if you're not going to ask something, then have something to say at least. I'd rather you just go "No questions, since I assume this job pays me in money I can use to buy things?". Getting a new job is a big deal - either you're about to quit somewhere and presumably you're looking because you care about finding a new employer that's better on some axis than your current job, or you're out of work and desperate to take anything, which is fine as well, but if you don't want to just admit that, you should probably have some idea of what to say otherwise.

dist-epoch 3y ago
How many companies would actually answer the real questions people have? You might actually get red flagged. So they go to GlassDoor for those. And then you are left with "polite questions", fillers.
- noirbot 3y ago
  It depends on the questions - I don't feel like I've often gotten bad answers when I've asked and I know I try my hardest to be as honest as possible when candidates ask me hard questions about my position. If I get red flagged for asking about their on-call policies or office-work plans or how they're handling the position/responsibilities that I would be taking on, then that seems like a bullet dodged? It's not like I'm expecting people to ask "So tell me about why you hate your manager" or "When was the last time you fired someone". You can ask probing but polite questions that give you information without having people tell you the sort of angry gossip you get on Glassdoor. Obviously, tailor this to how desperate you are. If you want absolutely zero chance anyone will reject you for any reason, then you should be asking the most fluffy questions you can. I certainly don't reject people for asking those questions. I just find it a weird signal when someone seemingly doesn't even want to pretend to care about content, structure, and culture of the job they're interviewing for.
- macNchz 3y ago