71–80 of 133 posts
Not so much about words for me, more about the vibe: Unwillingness to compromise. Unwillingness to evolve. Lack of empathy. Lack of trust. Lack of flexibility. A fetish for telling people what to do.
I don't think I've ever seen a job that doesn't have one or more of these.
But too much of that and I'm out.
Making fun of my side project. An interviewer looked at me with this vicious, incredulous look when I described my side project in ~2019, which was a weather network built on the sensors inside phones. Guy said, “a weather app, really?! You think that’s a good use of your time in 2019? What makes you think a weather app is useful to make today?” MFer, it was a good idea in 2011 and it’s a good idea today and it’ll be…
And even if it wasn’t a good idea, the fact that the person couldn’t be respectful when they’re trying to impress you the most is a very bad sign.
And ignoring that, even if the project was just a toy that isn't particularly useful, that's not really the point. Developing and building a project/product from the ground up is useful experience, whatever it is. Demonstrating a valuable skill should never be a prompt for scorn.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's wrong with the interviewer wearing a suit?
For what it's worth, I'm near 40 and have never once seen anybody at any work place wear a suit (who wasn't giving a speech at a town hall). There is nothing wrong with wearing a suit, and it may be common in some workplaces/cultures, but in others it can be corollary to a work culture you are not compatible with.
When I last interviewed 15 years or so ago, I wore a jacket and tie (though not a suit) when I interviewed in person. I certainly didn't think it was necessary but I'd have been shocked if anyone had considered it to be a ding.
But also some of these examples could be from companies who understand the bidirectional dynamic. E.g. if you consider wearing a suit to be a bad sign the company might just as well be glad you don't want to work at a place like that. Win-win!
My contribution to the argument: people who use vapid business buzzwords/ like "win-win" except in the rare cases where it really is appropriate.
I've walked out of an interview when the employee doing it took a phone call in the middle of it. It was so rude and disrespectful. I once got a whiteboarding problem and proposed a solution, and the interviewer gave me a flat out "that's not the one I had in mind". I'd already asked clarifying questions and thought my proposal was reasonable in light of the constraints as I understood them. After a few minutes of tr…
Oh jeez. The impatient, combative side of me would want to respond, "so you're not open to other people's ideas, or open to the possibility that your approaches may not be the only good possibilities?"
A more diplomatic response might be, "can you tell me what you think about my approach is unworkable or at least suboptimal?" I think your question about a possible missing constraint/requirement was a good one. Actually, I think after asking that question and getting no reasonable responses, my original combative response seems a bit more appropriate...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We have a take home assignment as a screening stage, but we ask candidates to time box it to 45min. Some folks refuse to do it and that's fine, but most are pretty open to it.
What do you do when people refuse? I know I probably would, so I'm curious.
The ones that come to mind: * If they are a small company who outsources any step of their interview process to another company. If you're only interviewing for a couple positions—people you will work with every single day—take the time to do it yourself. * If they are a startup that says they are looking for people who are interested in solving exciting problems . For some people, this is going to be an enticement,…
1-2 hour long interview?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What do you do when people refuse? I know I probably would, so I'm curious.
Given how much time an interview process usually takes, I don't think 45 minutes is a lot to ask; if I were the interviewer or were setting policy, I'd advocate for, "sorry you feel that way, but we won't be able to continue the interview in that case". Then again, not completely sure what the GP means about "screening stage"; if a take-home assignment is given before any kind of substantive interaction between the c…
I think a lot of companies forget that the interview is the applicant selling themselves to the interviewer and *the company selling itself to the applicant". That's a strong "reject" signal to me. But also some of these examples could be from companies who understand the bidirectional dynamic. E.g. if you consider wearing a suit to be a bad sign the company might just as well be glad you don't want to work at a plac…
To be fair, I think that's a more recent phenomenon, at least when it comes to hiring low- to mid-career rank-and-file (in the past I think this was a consideration mainly only when trying to hire executives or people with specialized talents). And even then, that only works in a job market that is relatively at equilibrium, or one where applicants are in high demand. Beggars can't be choosers, as the saying goes.
The ones that come to mind: * If they are a small company who outsources any step of their interview process to another company. If you're only interviewing for a couple positions—people you will work with every single day—take the time to do it yourself. * If they are a startup that says they are looking for people who are interested in solving exciting problems . For some people, this is going to be an enticement,…
I'm torn on this. Having dedicated recruiting staff isn't cheap, and I'm not sure a small company could justify this unless they're constantly hiring. But I've gotten soooo much low-effort, generic recruiting spam from third-party recruiters that, were I running a company, I'd only resort to those sorts of recruiters if I had no choice.