4 ms·

Interview is a two way street, they interview you, you interview them. Basically, you just didn't like the first company and clicked with the second. Don't put

by azov 14y ago

Interview is a two way street, they interview you, you interview them. Basically, you just didn't like the first company and clicked with the second. Don't put too much weight on the interview style. If they didn't extend you an offer, chances are it would be even more frustrating - it's harder to figure out what went wrong with the second interview as they are relying more on the "gut feeling". The first one is a bit more systematic. Both styles can work fine.

megablast 14y ago
I think there is a lot more to it than that. I have been to interviews which were almost hostile like the first one, and the opposite, where it was almost a conversation. I do not understand people who do the first type. Why? The interviewee is the enemy.
- DavidWoof 14y ago
  Sure, but read closer,and you'll see that the impression of the two interviews is based almost entirely on the subjective terms the writer chooses to describe them. One person was the "shark on the team" whose questions got "very aggressive", while the other was "intimidating but tolerable" and "I could tell he was protecting the quality of his team". Or consider "Instead of demanding from me why I wanted to work there, he just tried to get a feel for what I was aiming for." Was there really a difference, or did the writer just click personally with one group and not the other? If it had gone differently, I could imagine him writing that "team one was respectful of my time and allowed me to order my favorite sandwich and eat during the interview, while team 2 expected me to waste yet another hour socializing with the group at a bad restaurant, where they got very aggressive asking about my personal life". So maybe company one really was hostile; just like you, I've seen that happen. OTOH, maybe it was just a personality clash, or maybe some of it is slanted by the fact that he got an offer from one and not the other. In my experience, once an interview process starts to go bad, I start to see everything the company does in a bad light, and vice versa.

by azov 14y ago

megablast 14y ago

I think there is a lot more to it than that. I have been to interviews which were almost hostile like the first one, and the opposite, where it was almost a conversation. I do not understand people who do the first type. Why? The interviewee is the enemy.

DavidWoof 14y ago
Sure, but read closer,and you'll see that the impression of the two interviews is based almost entirely on the subjective terms the writer chooses to describe them. One person was the "shark on the team" whose questions got "very aggressive", while the other was "intimidating but tolerable" and "I could tell he was protecting the quality of his team". Or consider "Instead of demanding from me why I wanted to work there, he just tried to get a feel for what I was aiming for." Was there really a difference, or did the writer just click personally with one group and not the other? If it had gone differently, I could imagine him writing that "team one was respectful of my time and allowed me to order my favorite sandwich and eat during the interview, while team 2 expected me to waste yet another hour socializing with the group at a bad restaurant, where they got very aggressive asking about my personal life". So maybe company one really was hostile; just like you, I've seen that happen. OTOH, maybe it was just a personality clash, or maybe some of it is slanted by the fact that he got an offer from one and not the other. In my experience, once an interview process starts to go bad, I start to see everything the company does in a bad light, and vice versa.