9 ms·

> In every round, the interviewer should leave with the impression that you answered their questions as honestly as possible because you’re looking for the righ

> In every round, the interviewer should leave with the impression that you answered their questions as honestly as possible because you’re looking for the right fit, not just a job. This is precisely what I despise about "job interviews". What you ask in the "Do you have any questions?" section of the interview should be irrelevant. I don't want to have to ask questions when I don't care about the answers just because that's what "top candidates" are supposed to do. What you're actually measuring is how much the person you're talking to is willing to read articles like this to come up with fake questions to ask as part of a fake performance so you'll hire them.

stevenpetryk 2y ago
Yeah. When I’m interviewing folks at my current company, and the Q&A portion begins, I tell them they can ask whatever they want or just reclaim the time; my notes are sealed. More interviewers should operate like that.
- lolinder 2y ago
  You can tell them that, but I don't think I'd believe it as a candidate. I'll assume that every interaction I have with you up until an offer is extended is going to influence your perception of me, whether you're taking notes or not.
  - stevenpetryk 2y ago
    I suspect most don’t believe it, and in general it’s wise to remain suspicious. But I’ll continue to reassure nonetheless.
kevinventullo 2y ago
FWIW at the big tech companies I’ve worked at, that part of the interview does not have any impact on hiring decisions.
- faizshah 2y ago
  In theory it’s irrelevant in practice although companies try to make the process quantitative it is ultimately qualitative because it’s a human rating on a qualitative rubric. The impression you leave on the interviewer always makes a difference in how they represent you in their feedback and panels. It’s like in school every TA uses the same rubric yet they all grade differently.
happyopossum 2y ago
I suppose it depends on the role, but IME as a hiring interviewer, that phase of the interview can important. Do you truly not care to learn anything about the company you will spend the next 2,3,5,10 years with?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- bdw5204 2y ago
  For somebody who's unemployed, especially somebody who's been unemployed a while (very common in this market), the main thing you care about is getting employed again. I imagine somebody who's currently employed wants to know that the company is better than the place they're currently at before they'd accept an offer. But sometimes "better" can be a very low bar to clear because their current company might be awful. In other words, evaluating the candidate by their questions is just bias towards those who are already in good situations. Somebody being unemployed or employed in a toxic environment doesn't mean there's anything wrong with them especially in an economy where companies continue to lay people off at random.
  - lolinder 2y ago
    > In other words, evaluating the candidate by their questions is just bias towards those who are already in good situations. It sucks for the employee, but the unfortunate truth is that filtering for someone who's already in a good situation is actually a really good filter for the employer. As you say, it doesn't necessarily mean there's something wrong with them, but being unable to find a job for an extended period of time—to the point where you'll look for anything and not try to filter workplaces at all—is correlated with undesirable traits. Meanwhile, being steadily employed in a chaotic market and asking questions that show you're not desperate and are evaluating me as a hiring manager are both correlated with positive traits. Again—not that any specific candidate is problematic or good because of those situations, but you will tend towards better hires overall if you watch those cues. The hiring process sucks and it sucks that this method of filtering works, but it does work.
greenthrow 2y ago
If you don't have any interest why do you want to work at that organization? You just want a check? That's not a good way to spend half your waking hours during the work week.
- bdw5204 2y ago
  If you aren't already wealthy, you're probably working because "you just want a check". Even if the job you want is to own your own company, you still have to work until you have enough savings. This is how the world has always worked for most of the population in every human society that has ever existed.
  - bluGill 2y ago
    Anyone who says anything else is probably lieing. If they are telling the truth they are a fanatic in a bad way so you don't want them. sure you want to make sure the company isn't really bad but mostly you need a check-
  - YZF 2y ago
    If your skills are in demand you can get the check from many employers. That said, if you want to run a business, and you don't like/want to do anything else, then you're kind of stuck. Unfortunately not wanting to do the job you want to get isn't generally what makes you a great hire but wanting to do a different job without having any skills also doesn't make you a great hire. Owning your own company is easy, go register it and you own it. Getting a check out of that is a little harder.
  - darby_nine 2y ago
    States can and do subsidize new businesses. It's generally in everyone's interest to actively foster competition.
- seadan83 2y ago
  Because the answers are likely not reliable anyways. Catfishing is the term.

stevenpetryk 2y ago

Yeah. When I’m interviewing folks at my current company, and the Q&A portion begins, I tell them they can ask whatever they want or just reclaim the time; my notes are sealed. More interviewers should operate like that.

lolinder 2y ago
You can tell them that, but I don't think I'd believe it as a candidate. I'll assume that every interaction I have with you up until an offer is extended is going to influence your perception of me, whether you're taking notes or not.
- stevenpetryk 2y ago
  I suspect most don’t believe it, and in general it’s wise to remain suspicious. But I’ll continue to reassure nonetheless.

kevinventullo 2y ago

FWIW at the big tech companies I’ve worked at, that part of the interview does not have any impact on hiring decisions.

faizshah 2y ago
In theory it’s irrelevant in practice although companies try to make the process quantitative it is ultimately qualitative because it’s a human rating on a qualitative rubric. The impression you leave on the interviewer always makes a difference in how they represent you in their feedback and panels. It’s like in school every TA uses the same rubric yet they all grade differently.

happyopossum 2y ago

I suppose it depends on the role, but IME as a hiring interviewer, that phase of the interview can important. Do you truly not care to learn anything about the company you will spend the next 2,3,5,10 years with?

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
bdw5204 2y ago
For somebody who's unemployed, especially somebody who's been unemployed a while (very common in this market), the main thing you care about is getting employed again. I imagine somebody who's currently employed wants to know that the company is better than the place they're currently at before they'd accept an offer. But sometimes "better" can be a very low bar to clear because their current company might be awful. In other words, evaluating the candidate by their questions is just bias towards those who are already in good situations. Somebody being unemployed or employed in a toxic environment doesn't mean there's anything wrong with them especially in an economy where companies continue to lay people off at random.
- lolinder 2y ago
  > In other words, evaluating the candidate by their questions is just bias towards those who are already in good situations. It sucks for the employee, but the unfortunate truth is that filtering for someone who's already in a good situation is actually a really good filter for the employer. As you say, it doesn't necessarily mean there's something wrong with them, but being unable to find a job for an extended period of time—to the point where you'll look for anything and not try to filter workplaces at all—is correlated with undesirable traits. Meanwhile, being steadily employed in a chaotic market and asking questions that show you're not desperate and are evaluating me as a hiring manager are both correlated with positive traits. Again—not that any specific candidate is problematic or good because of those situations, but you will tend towards better hires overall if you watch those cues. The hiring process sucks and it sucks that this method of filtering works, but it does work.

greenthrow 2y ago

If you don't have any interest why do you want to work at that organization? You just want a check? That's not a good way to spend half your waking hours during the work week.

bdw5204 2y ago
If you aren't already wealthy, you're probably working because "you just want a check". Even if the job you want is to own your own company, you still have to work until you have enough savings. This is how the world has always worked for most of the population in every human society that has ever existed.
- bluGill 2y ago
  Anyone who says anything else is probably lieing. If they are telling the truth they are a fanatic in a bad way so you don't want them. sure you want to make sure the company isn't really bad but mostly you need a check-
- YZF 2y ago
  If your skills are in demand you can get the check from many employers. That said, if you want to run a business, and you don't like/want to do anything else, then you're kind of stuck. Unfortunately not wanting to do the job you want to get isn't generally what makes you a great hire but wanting to do a different job without having any skills also doesn't make you a great hire. Owning your own company is easy, go register it and you own it. Getting a check out of that is a little harder.
- darby_nine 2y ago
  States can and do subsidize new businesses. It's generally in everyone's interest to actively foster competition.
seadan83 2y ago
Because the answers are likely not reliable anyways. Catfishing is the term.