5 ms·

I always find it interesting how we (as humans) are not expected to act the same way as companies. A company can end an interview early and it's not rude. A c

by aplusbi 14y ago

I always find it interesting how we (as humans) are not expected to act the same way as companies. A company can end an interview early and it's not rude. A company can terminate an employee without notice and it's not rude. A company can change dress code and it's not rude. That's not to say that people won't complain, just that these things are perfectly normal.

jiggy2011 14y ago
I think it would be considered a bit rude for an employer to terminate an interview early without a good reason. Unless it was obvious that the interview would just be a waste of everyones time, in which case I might be grateful, I've grinded through hour long phone interviews where it's been clear in the first 5 minutes that I'm not what they are looking for.
- wccrawford 14y ago
  At a previous job, we had a question that we'd use to signal that we thought the interview was over so that the boss could wrap it up. The interviewee only knew that they were hit with an odd question. They didn't know it signaled the end. There were other times that the boss ended it early without consulting us. Only once was I unsure he should have done so. And again, the interviewee didn't know the difference. We did, because we do the same things every interview, and if some are left out, it's obviously short. But we could get away with it because the interviewee had no expectations. The guy in the article, however, was there for a full day of interviews. If they cut it short, he'd know. And yes, it would have been rude, just like he was rude to leave. But in the end, does that matter? If he stayed, knowing he wouldn't fit, he'd be wasting their time and his. Leaving saved them all time and money, and they should be thankful instead of upset. Their feelings were hurt because they thought they had an awesome place to work, and he didn't think so.
loup-vaillant 14y ago
This boils down to expected status differentials. Most of the time, the candidate is supposed to have lower status than the company hiring him. Leaving early challenges the perception that the candidate has lower status, and implicitly lowers the status of the company (in other words, it humiliates it). And the standard defence to humiliation is taking offence.
- Freestyler_3 14y ago
  I don't think all applicants need to be bowing down for the o so great company that is granting them this interview. Business equality. There are 2 sides of the coin. Company can say no to applicant because they see no future in it so canceling saves money. Applicant can't say no to company because it humiliates them. You can turn company and applicant around, what stays is that the money is saved on company side and time for applicant. The company or the applicant gets humiliated, who has to go home and tell someone (family/friends) that they didn't get the job. The company staff just continuous their routine, because that is company ritual.
borplk 14y ago
It is one of the reasons that the idea of 'corporation' was created in the first place. An 'entity' to hide behind.
adjwilli 14y ago
It's because the company has the leverage. If they terminate an interview early, they leave one person with a bad impression. If you terminate the interview early, you leave however many people are participating in the interview with a bad impression. Relatedly, the 2003 documentary "The Corporation" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Corporation_(film) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Corporation_(film)) makes the case that if corporations are "people", they fit the psychopath personality type. Non-psychopathic people have a sense of empathy, a personality trait that corporations lack.
- jseliger 14y ago
  The movie was silly: it painted corporations as evil while completely ignoring the problems that the corporation as a legal form was invented to solve. A grad seminar actually assigned it, and when I pointed out some of its flaws—like saying all corporations just have to make money, when many kinds of corporations need to do what their shareholders want them to—everyone was stumped. Had anyone read Coase? No. Sigh. See http://blakemasters.tumblr.com/post/20400301508/cs183class1 http://blakemasters.tumblr.com/post/20400301508/cs183class1 and Coase's essay "The Nature of the Firm" for more on why they exist.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- antidoh 14y ago
  If a company terminates an interview early it might leave a bad impression with the employees who participated in the interview. And you have to work with those people tomorrow.
  - richardjordan 14y ago
    Nah, happens all the time. They just say the candidate wasn't up to it. Existing employees' vanity works as a defense against disbelieving the company line here - they must be special to have been hired, after all, not booted early like that donkey of a candidate.

by aplusbi 14y ago

jiggy2011 14y ago

I think it would be considered a bit rude for an employer to terminate an interview early without a good reason. Unless it was obvious that the interview would just be a waste of everyones time, in which case I might be grateful, I've grinded through hour long phone interviews where it's been clear in the first 5 minutes that I'm not what they are looking for.

wccrawford 14y ago
At a previous job, we had a question that we'd use to signal that we thought the interview was over so that the boss could wrap it up. The interviewee only knew that they were hit with an odd question. They didn't know it signaled the end. There were other times that the boss ended it early without consulting us. Only once was I unsure he should have done so. And again, the interviewee didn't know the difference. We did, because we do the same things every interview, and if some are left out, it's obviously short. But we could get away with it because the interviewee had no expectations. The guy in the article, however, was there for a full day of interviews. If they cut it short, he'd know. And yes, it would have been rude, just like he was rude to leave. But in the end, does that matter? If he stayed, knowing he wouldn't fit, he'd be wasting their time and his. Leaving saved them all time and money, and they should be thankful instead of upset. Their feelings were hurt because they thought they had an awesome place to work, and he didn't think so.

loup-vaillant 14y ago

This boils down to expected status differentials. Most of the time, the candidate is supposed to have lower status than the company hiring him. Leaving early challenges the perception that the candidate has lower status, and implicitly lowers the status of the company (in other words, it humiliates it). And the standard defence to humiliation is taking offence.

Freestyler_3 14y ago
I don't think all applicants need to be bowing down for the o so great company that is granting them this interview. Business equality. There are 2 sides of the coin. Company can say no to applicant because they see no future in it so canceling saves money. Applicant can't say no to company because it humiliates them. You can turn company and applicant around, what stays is that the money is saved on company side and time for applicant. The company or the applicant gets humiliated, who has to go home and tell someone (family/friends) that they didn't get the job. The company staff just continuous their routine, because that is company ritual.

borplk 14y ago

It is one of the reasons that the idea of 'corporation' was created in the first place. An 'entity' to hide behind.

adjwilli 14y ago

It's because the company has the leverage. If they terminate an interview early, they leave one person with a bad impression. If you terminate the interview early, you leave however many people are participating in the interview with a bad impression. Relatedly, the 2003 documentary "The Corporation" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Corporation_(film) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Corporation_(film)) makes the case that if corporations are "people", they fit the psychopath personality type. Non-psychopathic people have a sense of empathy, a personality trait that corporations lack.

jseliger 14y ago
The movie was silly: it painted corporations as evil while completely ignoring the problems that the corporation as a legal form was invented to solve. A grad seminar actually assigned it, and when I pointed out some of its flaws—like saying all corporations just have to make money, when many kinds of corporations need to do what their shareholders want them to—everyone was stumped. Had anyone read Coase? No. Sigh. See http://blakemasters.tumblr.com/post/20400301508/cs183class1 http://blakemasters.tumblr.com/post/20400301508/cs183class1 and Coase's essay "The Nature of the Firm" for more on why they exist.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
antidoh 14y ago
If a company terminates an interview early it might leave a bad impression with the employees who participated in the interview. And you have to work with those people tomorrow.
- richardjordan 14y ago
  Nah, happens all the time. They just say the candidate wasn't up to it. Existing employees' vanity works as a defense against disbelieving the company line here - they must be special to have been hired, after all, not booted early like that donkey of a candidate.