Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

People are still bad at gauging their own interview performance

blog.interviewing.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 152 posts

Re: People are still bad at gauging their own interview performance

#41

Post by semi-extrinsic »

nsxwolf wrote: post #37
fecak wrote: post #7

>some portion of interviewees are losing interest in joining your company just because they didn’t think they did well, despite the fact that they actually did. This is the key takeaway for me. This is IMO and experience probably based on a "sour grapes" type defense mechanism, where candidates will internally try to talk themselves out of wanting a job that they felt they didn't get. They walk out of the interview f…

>some portion of interviewees are losing interest in joining your company just because they didn’t think they did well, despite the fact that they actually did. Wait. They think they didn't do well, got an offer, but turned it down because they think they didn't do well on the interview?

No, that's not what he said. After they think they didn't do well, people subconsciously start looking for reasons why they don't want to work there anyway: commute is bad, maybe they won't fit the culture, no free lunches etc.

Re: People are still bad at gauging their own interview performance

#42

Post by fecak »

nsxwolf wrote: post #37
fecak wrote: post #7

>some portion of interviewees are losing interest in joining your company just because they didn’t think they did well, despite the fact that they actually did. This is the key takeaway for me. This is IMO and experience probably based on a "sour grapes" type defense mechanism, where candidates will internally try to talk themselves out of wanting a job that they felt they didn't get. They walk out of the interview f…

>some portion of interviewees are losing interest in joining your company just because they didn’t think they did well, despite the fact that they actually did. Wait. They think they didn't do well, got an offer, but turned it down because they think they didn't do well on the interview?

Usually, in my experience anyway, it doesn't get that far.

The blog post just refers to interviewees saying "I wouldn't want to work with the interviewer" when they mistakenly feel that they did poorly in the interview.

Anecdotally from the real world, when I (headhunter) get feedback from a candidate shortly/immediately after an interview, if they feel they did poorly they tend to add that there were things they didn't like about the opportunity (a person, the office, something). People that feel they did well don't usually go negative as easily.

But I also go back to the employer and get their feedback ASAP, and when that comes back positive I immediately pass that message to the candidate. Assuming the employer's feedback is somewhat prompt, the candidate doesn't get too much opportunity to go negative, and once they "feel wanted" by the employer they usually trend back positive. Offers come shortly thereafter.

Re: People are still bad at gauging their own interview performance

#43

Post by vonmoltke »

Jemmeh wrote: post #19
GoToRO wrote: post #6

I often wonder how would these people hire soldiers? "So I see you have no previous experience in killing people... We are looking for people that have at least 5 years of experience in killing people." My point is you need smart enough people for your job and nothing more. You do an IQ test, a personality one and that's all. The rest can be learned.

If I am a business owner, and I need someone to create a website for me to do something, the first thing I will reach for is someone who has already done similar projects and has a track record of getting it done. Teaching people is expensive, takes time (my website could be making me money -right now-) and doesn't always pay off. Whenever possible, it's often preferred to grab someone who can just hit the ground run…

> If I am a business owner, and I need someone to create a website for me to do something, the first thing I will reach for is someone who has already done similar projects and has a track record of getting it done.

If that is the case, what you need is a contractor, not an employee, and you should hire accordingly.

Re: People are still bad at gauging their own interview performance

#44

Post by Ologn »

After having interviewed dozens of people, the idea occurred to me that my ratings for interviewees were a Gaussian curve with a normal distribution. Most people blended into each other - they knew the topics the same amount. Enough to be employed in their current job. Then one in six was a standard deviation below or worse, and one in six was a standard deviation above or better.

That might be one reason for the impostor syndrome. Because if we interviewed six people, one would be unqualified, four would be OK but not spectacular, and one would know the subjects better than anyone. So in an interview of six people the best qualified one of the six would have the job. The average four were not truly impostors, but would not get the job unless they had an inside recommendation or if we were really needed someone and there was a shortage of candidates coming in.

Re: People are still bad at gauging their own interview performance

#45

Post by kasey_junk »

nsxwolf wrote: post #38
Yhippa wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I absolutely judge a company by the interview process and the questions they ask. "Would I want to work for a company where the employees pass their given process?"

A company's bad interview process might have nothing at all to do with the rest of the company. At this point, isn't it generally accepted that all tech interviewing sucks, and companies would do better throwing darts at resumes? If all interviewing is bad, and all companies are not bad, there's no benefit to judging a company based on that process.

All tech interviewing does not suck, just most. A company that had a good hiring process would definitely have gone a long way to selling me on working there.

Re: People are still bad at gauging their own interview performance

#46

Post by GoToRO »

hnal943 wrote: post #36
GoToRO wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

:)) Just the other day a manager said "HR is overwhelmed. They have a student that filters the CVs and she is doing all she can." The senior programmer exploded "How is a student any good at filtering programmers, she does not know anything about programming!".

Based on your comments in this thread, it sounds like you may need a new job.

I already have it. Not a long time ago I was searching for a job and this is how I learned all these things. Because I always learn :).

Strange experience.

Re: People are still bad at gauging their own interview performance

#47

Post by sidlls »

rifung wrote: post #16
GoToRO wrote: post #6

I often wonder how would these people hire soldiers? "So I see you have no previous experience in killing people... We are looking for people that have at least 5 years of experience in killing people." My point is you need smart enough people for your job and nothing more. You do an IQ test, a personality one and that's all. The rest can be learned.

Not that I disagree with you, but sadly, most companies don't seem to want to train people anymore. They rather push that responsibility to either universities or the applicants themselves. In fairness, I do think that someone who is very comfortable with a language or framework will be able to do things much faster than someone who isn't. Considering how quickly people change jobs nowadays, I can also see how compan…

Define "much faster." I am seriously trying to think of a developer I'd describe as competent and smart who could not pick up a new language or framework with sufficient understanding to be minimally productive (fixing minor to moderate bugs, contributing to new if simple features) inside a week or two. If that's not fast enough, something has gone terribly wrong planning the project.

Re: People are still bad at gauging their own interview performance

#48

Post by throw_away_777 »

RyanCavanaugh wrote: post #2

I would draw the opposite conclusion from that data. The mode difference was 0, and 91% of people were within 1 star of the interviewer. Without knowing what the interviewer's bar is for any particular star level, I don't see how the interviewees could do any better. Rounding to 1-star increments amplifies relatively small changes -- if the interviewer rounds up 3.6 to 4 and you round 3.4 down to 3.

Yeah, the way the data was presented was not informative. The heat maps are interesting to look at, but don't really convey the information well - the colors are basically useless. You have to hover over everything, at which point it should be presented as a table or a better picture.

It is pretty clear from one of the plots that interviewers and interviewees grade on a different curve - the mean interviewee scores themselves lower than the mean interviewer does. But once you correct for this, it seems that people are actually pretty good judges of how well they did. I'm honestly surprised by how low the R-squared was, I wonder if they included an intercept?

Re: People are still bad at gauging their own interview performance

#49

Post by CaptSpify »

nsxwolf wrote: post #38
Yhippa wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I absolutely judge a company by the interview process and the questions they ask. "Would I want to work for a company where the employees pass their given process?"

A company's bad interview process might have nothing at all to do with the rest of the company. At this point, isn't it generally accepted that all tech interviewing sucks, and companies would do better throwing darts at resumes? If all interviewing is bad, and all companies are not bad, there's no benefit to judging a company based on that process.

I wouldn't 100% base my acceptance of a job on an interview, but I would use it as one of many factors.

Were they on time to the interview? Did it seem like a good culture fit for me? Do they seem positive about working there? Was the interview full of poor communication? or confused looks?

Re: People are still bad at gauging their own interview performance

#50

Post by wpietri »

Yhippa wrote: post #17
fecak wrote: post #7

>some portion of interviewees are losing interest in joining your company just because they didn’t think they did well, despite the fact that they actually did. This is the key takeaway for me. This is IMO and experience probably based on a "sour grapes" type defense mechanism, where candidates will internally try to talk themselves out of wanting a job that they felt they didn't get. They walk out of the interview f…

I absolutely judge a company by the interview process and the questions they ask. "Would I want to work for a company where the employees pass their given process?"

When I was at Code for America I redid their hiring process to optimize for interviewee experience rather than hiring manager experience.

One of the things that really struck me at the time was that traditional interview processes are built around a notion of worker surplus and job scarcity. They make very little sense when the opposite condition applies.

Even little things like contacting all applicants within 24 hours really wowed people.

Post reply on HN