5 ms·

This is spot on. I can't even fathom why somebody would needlessly burn bridges like this. The fact that we live in boom times and enjoy near-unprecedented de

by doktrin 14y ago

This is spot on. I can't even fathom why somebody would needlessly burn bridges like this. The fact that we live in boom times and enjoy near-unprecedented demand for our skills is no excuse for this type of myopic behavior. What really surprised me was that the OP's candidate was a referral. It's one thing to risk burning your own bridges, but it's completely inconsiderate to possibly tarnish the reputation of someone who spoke up on your behalf. Speaking for myself, unless this was a close personal friend, I would be very reluctant to ever subsequently recommend this individual again. Without delving into anecdotes, I've witnessed a scenario quite similar to this one. A candidate who was referred (as a "rockstar") struggled with the technical interview, and subsequently walked out. It goes without saying how he, and to a lesser extent the individual who referred him, were viewed in the aftermath. TLDR; Please don't do this. It's completely unnecessary and possibly inconsiderate.

brown9-2 14y ago
Based on the company's behavior in the story, the candidate saw no need to maintain a bridge with such toxic people. So what positive results would have came from wasting more of your time and their time? I don't understand the deferential view towards the company doing the interview, as if a company itself could never be considered rude, myopic, inconsiderate or wrong. Also it doesn't sound like a referral (the OP doesn't work there), just a recommendation of the candidate's skills and experience.
- euroclydon 14y ago
  Now they're toxic? For expecting him to have side projects or being primarily concerned with his programming skills, or expecting him to code a certain way? Those expectations may be silly, and ultimately a disservice to the company itself, but they're not toxic.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
- duck 14y ago
  Toxic people? How do you know that? You're hearing the story from one side -- someone who obviously didn't like the culture and most likely the people working there. We have all been in situations where one person takes the reaction of someone completely different than another.
  - brown9-2 14y ago
    Yes, I'm assuming his story is accurate. Otherwise we are just debating hypotheticals. I think that if you conclude that the company is not for you, and you feel that the interviewers have been less-than-nice, you are saving everyone otherwise-wasted-time by leaving early. I don't see how you are under any obligation to go through the motions in a process where you do not want a successful outcome. It's not rude to realize the company is not a good fit for you and save time. In fact, why should any interviewer be offended with a candidate who has made this decision and leaves early? They've already decided they will not accept any offer from you. The only reason to be offended is if you cannot fathom than anyone would not want to work for you.
    - Peroni 14y ago
      You're absolutely spot on. The reality is that candidates ending interviews prematurely is incredibly rare. If it happens then something has failed within your interview process. The only way you will know this is if the candidate clearly explains his reasoning for ending prematurely.
      - deleted 14y ago
        [deleted]
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
    - duck 14y ago
      I'm not saying I wouldn't leave early and agree that it wouldn't be rude to do so, but I find it a stretch to call the company toxic because of this.
- taude 14y ago
  Some of those people at that company will be at different companies in the future. When in doubt, don't burn bridges. Don't be rude. Don't be a Prima Donna. Someday the tech economy will be very different, ask anyone who lived through 2000 - 2003, when a lot of people had to get out of the industry because there were NO JOBS.
  - brown9-2 14y ago
    If we take the interviewee's story as truthful, then it sounds like a lot of the interviewers in the room could bear to learn the same lesson here - don't belittle candidates because you never know when or where you'll see them again.
    - cube13 14y ago
      I take it with a gigantic grain of salt. It's too vague to be helpful. For example, the "dogmatic principles" criticism. The interviewers could have asked "Is security a good thing?", and he could have answered "No". Or the interviewers could have asked a silly question like "Tabs or spaces?" and berated him for answer answering "Spaces". Context is absolutely important. And if we take the story as truthful, he just went up and said he's done with the interview, without explaining the reason to the room. He pretty clearly didn't explain to the room that he did not feel that he was a good fit, and did not want to further waste anyone's time. That's the only logical explanation for why the lead had to track him down in the elevator, to understand why the interviewee decided to end it.
      - rimantas 14y ago
        I am pretty sure, that the candidate would get no detailed reasoning why he was rejected if he were get no offer. Why do you think he owes explanation?
    - run4yourlives 14y ago
      ...which is completely irrelevant to the way you should conduct yourself.
  - 14y ago
malsme 14y ago
I think the length of the interview is important. If it is, say, 15 minutes to an hour long, then sure, stick around and see what happens. All-day interviews can be draining/horrible experiences, especially when it has sunk in that you aren't getting the position, don't fit in and so on.
mindcrime 14y ago
I can't even fathom why somebody would needlessly burn bridges like this. I don't think any of us can actually say if any bridges were burned or not, unless we were there. Ending an interview early is not - by default - an instance of "burning a bridge". It the situation is handled courteously and gracefully, no harm is done unless the person on the other side is a huge asshole. And if they are a huge asshole anyway, there's no point worrying about the bridge.
masterzora 14y ago
Did the candidate really risk burning bridges? If he said "fuck you, fuck this, fuck everything, I'm out" then clearly that's just a shitty way to go about it. If he said something closer to "Thank you all for your time. You're doing fascinating work but I don't think that this would be a good fit. I really enjoyed meeting you all and maybe I'll get a chance to work with some of you on a future project." and they decided that was burning a bridge then that is a bridge worth burning. As an interviewer, I'd have a higher opinion of someone willing to cut an interview short if they realise it's not really going to end well and as a candidate, as long as the company hasn't spent money to fly me out somewhere or something, it's an option I like having on the table for an all-day interview since there's not much point in tiring oneself out if it's not going anywhere.
- doktrin 14y ago
  >>If he said something closer to "Thank you all for your time. You're doing fascinating work but I don't think that this would be a good fit. I really enjoyed meeting you all and maybe I'll get a chance to work with some of you on a future project." and they decided that was burning a bridge then that is a bridge worth burning. That is certainly not the impression I got from reading the OP : "At one point when he was asked to move to another conference room he decided he had enough and said that he was done with the interview and wanted to leave." "When he went to leave the lead jumped into the elevator with him and asked him why he didn't want to continue" We're forced to interpret a 2nd hand retelling of the events, but everything points to this individual leaving relatively abruptly. Why else would someone feel the need to run after him into the elevator?
  - masterzora 14y ago
    We have way too little to go on to actually decide which way the candidate went. We have one side of the story second-hand filtered via our own interpretations. Thing of it is, given just what we know I could spend ages listing out credible ways it could have gone given what we have. Assume that the candidate did give something closer to my latter statement. Perhaps the lead wanted a better explanation of what made the fit so poor. Perhaps the lead actually could not comprehend anyone not wanting to work there. Perhaps the lead didn't believe the explanation given. Any of these could feasibly lead to the same account we're given, as could simply leaving abruptly or literally saying "fuck you, fuck this, fuck everything".
slantyyz 14y ago
>> I can't even fathom why somebody would needlessly burn bridges like this. Your ability to "burn bridges", so to speak depends on how small the hiring community is and where you are in your career. Myself, I've gotten all of my jobs in the past decade by referral/reputation. I don't have a mortgage to worry about, etc., and I live in a big city so the notion of "burning bridges" isn't as big a deal as it might be for someone starting out. If you burn a bridge for doing something that is justified, and you do it politely and professionally, so be it. It is quite possible to terminate an interview politely and professionally, and most of my peers (including myself) who have gone through the hiring cycle actually appreciate it when someone cuts it short, because most of us want to spend time recruiting people who actually want to work with us. I'd actually respect that candidate even more, to be honest. >> What really surprised me was that the OP's candidate was a referral. This is one area where you generally need to go through all of the motions, even if it's painful - I'm willing to allow my own bridges to burn, but I would never burn someone else's bridge. I've had an interview like that before, and had I not gone in under someone else's word, I would have cut short the interview as politely and professionally as possible. Having said that, it is worth noting that the OP recommended the person because they were a "no-nonsense" kind of person. They can't regret referring that person for demonstrating the exact behavior that got the referral in the first place.
spaghetti 14y ago
The only bridges that were burned were from the candidate to the company. In other words the company made the mistake. Not the candidate. Having a blanket policy on not walking out of interviews is ridiculous. The manner in which one walks out makes all the difference. The rockstar you mentioned probably walked out the wrong way. Namely sulking, pouting and not saying anything. The right way is to be polite, clear and concise. It's exactly what the company does when they think it's not working out. Think about this from an employer's perspective. Someone cutting the interview short actually piques my interest. This is especially true if they pass all the technical interviews. I'd probably follow-up with them and see if they were interested in contract or part-time work. On the other hand I don't look too highly upon candidates that just sit through all the interviews by default. I want someone who will speak up, be confident etc.
- jakejake 14y ago
  I like programmers who are smart and bring their inventive ideas to the company. That may include some healthy arguments at times as well. That's not the same as somebody who's constantly combative and seems to have no clue that we need to keep the company running in order to continue receiving paychecks. The later is also the type of person who rudely walks out on an interview. No thanks.
  - slurgfest 14y ago
    You have broken the world into two groups: healthy arguments and constantly combative. But there is no hard criterion to separate the two. And you spuriously assign anyone to 'constantly combative' who cuts an interview short, when this doesn't at all mean that someone has no clue and likes fighting for no reason. So consider the possibility that you are assigning people to 'constantly combative' when you simply don't like their smart and inventive ideas and healthy arguments. Perhaps one healthy argument too far hurts your ego and becomes 'constant combat' without being any less healthy in reality. That incentive structure is all it takes to make a whole dept. or whole company act in an essentially delusional and inwardly-focused way.
    - 14y ago

by doktrin 14y ago

brown9-2 14y ago

Based on the company's behavior in the story, the candidate saw no need to maintain a bridge with such toxic people. So what positive results would have came from wasting more of your time and their time? I don't understand the deferential view towards the company doing the interview, as if a company itself could never be considered rude, myopic, inconsiderate or wrong. Also it doesn't sound like a referral (the OP doesn't work there), just a recommendation of the candidate's skills and experience.

euroclydon 14y ago
Now they're toxic? For expecting him to have side projects or being primarily concerned with his programming skills, or expecting him to code a certain way? Those expectations may be silly, and ultimately a disservice to the company itself, but they're not toxic.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
duck 14y ago
Toxic people? How do you know that? You're hearing the story from one side -- someone who obviously didn't like the culture and most likely the people working there. We have all been in situations where one person takes the reaction of someone completely different than another.
- brown9-2 14y ago
  Yes, I'm assuming his story is accurate. Otherwise we are just debating hypotheticals. I think that if you conclude that the company is not for you, and you feel that the interviewers have been less-than-nice, you are saving everyone otherwise-wasted-time by leaving early. I don't see how you are under any obligation to go through the motions in a process where you do not want a successful outcome. It's not rude to realize the company is not a good fit for you and save time. In fact, why should any interviewer be offended with a candidate who has made this decision and leaves early? They've already decided they will not accept any offer from you. The only reason to be offended is if you cannot fathom than anyone would not want to work for you.
  - Peroni 14y ago
    You're absolutely spot on. The reality is that candidates ending interviews prematurely is incredibly rare. If it happens then something has failed within your interview process. The only way you will know this is if the candidate clearly explains his reasoning for ending prematurely.
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - duck 14y ago
    I'm not saying I wouldn't leave early and agree that it wouldn't be rude to do so, but I find it a stretch to call the company toxic because of this.
taude 14y ago
Some of those people at that company will be at different companies in the future. When in doubt, don't burn bridges. Don't be rude. Don't be a Prima Donna. Someday the tech economy will be very different, ask anyone who lived through 2000 - 2003, when a lot of people had to get out of the industry because there were NO JOBS.
- brown9-2 14y ago
  If we take the interviewee's story as truthful, then it sounds like a lot of the interviewers in the room could bear to learn the same lesson here - don't belittle candidates because you never know when or where you'll see them again.
  - cube13 14y ago
    I take it with a gigantic grain of salt. It's too vague to be helpful. For example, the "dogmatic principles" criticism. The interviewers could have asked "Is security a good thing?", and he could have answered "No". Or the interviewers could have asked a silly question like "Tabs or spaces?" and berated him for answer answering "Spaces". Context is absolutely important. And if we take the story as truthful, he just went up and said he's done with the interview, without explaining the reason to the room. He pretty clearly didn't explain to the room that he did not feel that he was a good fit, and did not want to further waste anyone's time. That's the only logical explanation for why the lead had to track him down in the elevator, to understand why the interviewee decided to end it.
    - rimantas 14y ago
      I am pretty sure, that the candidate would get no detailed reasoning why he was rejected if he were get no offer. Why do you think he owes explanation?
  - run4yourlives 14y ago
    ...which is completely irrelevant to the way you should conduct yourself.
- 14y ago

malsme 14y ago

I think the length of the interview is important. If it is, say, 15 minutes to an hour long, then sure, stick around and see what happens. All-day interviews can be draining/horrible experiences, especially when it has sunk in that you aren't getting the position, don't fit in and so on.

mindcrime 14y ago

I can't even fathom why somebody would needlessly burn bridges like this. I don't think any of us can actually say if any bridges were burned or not, unless we were there. Ending an interview early is not - by default - an instance of "burning a bridge". It the situation is handled courteously and gracefully, no harm is done unless the person on the other side is a huge asshole. And if they are a huge asshole anyway, there's no point worrying about the bridge.

masterzora 14y ago

Did the candidate really risk burning bridges? If he said "fuck you, fuck this, fuck everything, I'm out" then clearly that's just a shitty way to go about it. If he said something closer to "Thank you all for your time. You're doing fascinating work but I don't think that this would be a good fit. I really enjoyed meeting you all and maybe I'll get a chance to work with some of you on a future project." and they decided that was burning a bridge then that is a bridge worth burning. As an interviewer, I'd have a higher opinion of someone willing to cut an interview short if they realise it's not really going to end well and as a candidate, as long as the company hasn't spent money to fly me out somewhere or something, it's an option I like having on the table for an all-day interview since there's not much point in tiring oneself out if it's not going anywhere.

doktrin 14y ago
>>If he said something closer to "Thank you all for your time. You're doing fascinating work but I don't think that this would be a good fit. I really enjoyed meeting you all and maybe I'll get a chance to work with some of you on a future project." and they decided that was burning a bridge then that is a bridge worth burning. That is certainly not the impression I got from reading the OP : "At one point when he was asked to move to another conference room he decided he had enough and said that he was done with the interview and wanted to leave." "When he went to leave the lead jumped into the elevator with him and asked him why he didn't want to continue" We're forced to interpret a 2nd hand retelling of the events, but everything points to this individual leaving relatively abruptly. Why else would someone feel the need to run after him into the elevator?
- masterzora 14y ago
  We have way too little to go on to actually decide which way the candidate went. We have one side of the story second-hand filtered via our own interpretations. Thing of it is, given just what we know I could spend ages listing out credible ways it could have gone given what we have. Assume that the candidate did give something closer to my latter statement. Perhaps the lead wanted a better explanation of what made the fit so poor. Perhaps the lead actually could not comprehend anyone not wanting to work there. Perhaps the lead didn't believe the explanation given. Any of these could feasibly lead to the same account we're given, as could simply leaving abruptly or literally saying "fuck you, fuck this, fuck everything".

slantyyz 14y ago

>> I can't even fathom why somebody would needlessly burn bridges like this. Your ability to "burn bridges", so to speak depends on how small the hiring community is and where you are in your career. Myself, I've gotten all of my jobs in the past decade by referral/reputation. I don't have a mortgage to worry about, etc., and I live in a big city so the notion of "burning bridges" isn't as big a deal as it might be for someone starting out. If you burn a bridge for doing something that is justified, and you do it politely and professionally, so be it. It is quite possible to terminate an interview politely and professionally, and most of my peers (including myself) who have gone through the hiring cycle actually appreciate it when someone cuts it short, because most of us want to spend time recruiting people who actually want to work with us. I'd actually respect that candidate even more, to be honest. >> What really surprised me was that the OP's candidate was a referral. This is one area where you generally need to go through all of the motions, even if it's painful - I'm willing to allow my own bridges to burn, but I would never burn someone else's bridge. I've had an interview like that before, and had I not gone in under someone else's word, I would have cut short the interview as politely and professionally as possible. Having said that, it is worth noting that the OP recommended the person because they were a "no-nonsense" kind of person. They can't regret referring that person for demonstrating the exact behavior that got the referral in the first place.

spaghetti 14y ago

The only bridges that were burned were from the candidate to the company. In other words the company made the mistake. Not the candidate. Having a blanket policy on not walking out of interviews is ridiculous. The manner in which one walks out makes all the difference. The rockstar you mentioned probably walked out the wrong way. Namely sulking, pouting and not saying anything. The right way is to be polite, clear and concise. It's exactly what the company does when they think it's not working out. Think about this from an employer's perspective. Someone cutting the interview short actually piques my interest. This is especially true if they pass all the technical interviews. I'd probably follow-up with them and see if they were interested in contract or part-time work. On the other hand I don't look too highly upon candidates that just sit through all the interviews by default. I want someone who will speak up, be confident etc.

jakejake 14y ago
I like programmers who are smart and bring their inventive ideas to the company. That may include some healthy arguments at times as well. That's not the same as somebody who's constantly combative and seems to have no clue that we need to keep the company running in order to continue receiving paychecks. The later is also the type of person who rudely walks out on an interview. No thanks.
- slurgfest 14y ago
  You have broken the world into two groups: healthy arguments and constantly combative. But there is no hard criterion to separate the two. And you spuriously assign anyone to 'constantly combative' who cuts an interview short, when this doesn't at all mean that someone has no clue and likes fighting for no reason. So consider the possibility that you are assigning people to 'constantly combative' when you simply don't like their smart and inventive ideas and healthy arguments. Perhaps one healthy argument too far hurts your ego and becomes 'constant combat' without being any less healthy in reality. That incentive structure is all it takes to make a whole dept. or whole company act in an essentially delusional and inwardly-focused way.
  - 14y ago