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

81–90 of 152 posts

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

#81

Post by nck4222 »

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.

There's also the possibility that interviewees are better at rating themselves than interviewers.

For the purpose of this article, interviewer ratings are considered the absolute truth while interviewee ratings are not, which is obviously not always the case in reality.

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

#82

Post by fecak »

kafkaesq wrote: post #80
nsxwolf wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[Wouldn't] companies would do better throwing darts at resumes? Or perhaps by actually reading resumes instead of keyword-filtering them. Really, it's not that hard. "Throwing darts at resumes", OTOH, is exactly what many companies seem to be doing right now. Specifically, the practice of setting up a "chat" with an internal recruiter (who inevitably tells you that they think you'll be a "wonderful fit") before passi…

>Or perhaps by actually reading resumes instead of keyword-filtering them

This one is a two-way street. I launched a resume writing side-business a couple years ago (resumeraiders.com) because I saw how poor many developer resumes were and how they were getting ripped off by resume writers who had no experience in hiring or in tech. Most were just failed writers.

If you expect a recruiter to read a poorly-written 5 page resume when the yes/no interview decision could have easily been made based on a summary and a few decent bullet points, that's not on the recruiter. If you think the 5 page resume is some kind of anomaly, ask the recruiters at your company how common they are.

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

#83

Post by Filligree »

red_blobs wrote: post #59
vonmoltke wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I disagree. Aside from an entry level position, you want someone with previous experience. Google wouldn't hire someone to manage their datacenter with no previous experience managing anything like it.

> Google wouldn't hire someone to manage their datacenter with no previous experience managing anything like it.

That's exactly what they do. The interviews test for basic skills — an understanding of TCP/IP, unix, programming ability and intelligence — and all the rest is on-the-job training.

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

#84

Post by fecak »

8_hours_ago wrote: post #75
amorphid wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kind of high pressure, no?

We don't pressure them, just give them the offer and continue to sell the company. It isn't like we hold the door shut until they accept :)

I'd be curious what percentage accept/reject on the spot, but I'd never ask a candidate to provide an answer either way if you present an offer right away. It's too important a decision for them not to at least take the night (especially after a day of interviews, a flight/hotel stay, an impending flight home). Even suggesting an immediate answer feels salesy ('whaddya think?'), and I'd think we'd see better results by presenting the offer and saying "take this home with you and get back to us when you're ready".

This approach should also tend to reduce counteroffer acceptances or accept/renege scenarios.

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

#85

Post by kafkaesq »

fecak wrote: post #82
kafkaesq wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[Wouldn't] companies would do better throwing darts at resumes? Or perhaps by actually reading resumes instead of keyword-filtering them. Really, it's not that hard. "Throwing darts at resumes", OTOH, is exactly what many companies seem to be doing right now. Specifically, the practice of setting up a "chat" with an internal recruiter (who inevitably tells you that they think you'll be a "wonderful fit") before passi…

>Or perhaps by actually reading resumes instead of keyword-filtering them This one is a two-way street. I launched a resume writing side-business a couple years ago (resumeraiders.com) because I saw how poor many developer resumes were and how they were getting ripped off by resume writers who had no experience in hiring or in tech. Most were just failed writers. If you expect a recruiter to read a poorly-written 5 p…

By all means -- skim the resumes first, and pull out all 5-pagers and other immediate fail cases (which are generally easy to spot). And save your reading skills for the 15% or so which might have something worth your time. That's what I meant.

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

#86

Post by delphinius81 »

Once you have an engineering job, a typical project tasking involves: some team design discussion, some engineering research, some work, some review, more work. The requirements are either known upfront, or determined as a team.

I do not understand why interviews are not conducted in this manner. Pick some arbitrary idea and have the candidate work with the interviewer to design something, then let the candidate do a little implementation research/design, review with the next interviewer, wipeboard code and review some part of the project with next reviewer. Have a coffee break at some point to get to know the person. Treat the interview process like a normal day at work.

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

#87

Post by henrik_w »

wpietri wrote: post #50
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?"

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 ho…

Very true. Some well known companies, like Google, still have more applicants than jobs, and so they need to filter people out. Most companies have the opposite problem - they need to attract people. This shift means that the interview process has to be re-thought.

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

#88

Post by serge2k »

wpietri wrote: post #50
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?"

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 ho…

> worker surplus and job scarcity

I'm convinced that's the only reason why processes at places like google aren't considered completely broken.

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

#89

Post by boardwaalk »

wpietri wrote: post #50
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?"

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 ho…

Oh gosh, this is totally true.

I honestly find it almost disrespectful when you feel some company is putting you through a pipeline. They set up an interview day, line everyone up, grind through them one by one.

The other thing is the technical interview which is unreflective of the job itself. In one recently, I was told before going in I had to code on a whiteboard. I ask, "Can I have I use a text editor, not an IDE or anything, just a text editor?" I get told, no (for nonsensical reasons I won't list here). That sort of arbitrariness and inflexibility turn me off, not to mention the standoffishness of having people stare over your shoulder and judge you rather than work as collaborators.

So I walked away from the interview. I'm happy where I am and you're gonna have to woo me, just a little bit, to get me to care.

Sometimes I wish we were unionized so we could set some standards (for many other things, but this as well).

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

#90

Post by Maultasche »

marblar wrote: post #51
nsxwolf wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> A company's bad interview process might have nothing at all to do with the rest of the company. Everyone who works at a company, got there by passing through the] interview filter. A bad interview process has everything to do with the company, particularly in organizations that have grown a lot in the recent past.

At the company I work for, most of the employers were hired based on the strength of referrals from existing employees. The very first employees were people that the founders knew personally and thought highly of. I never had an interview because several of the employees had worked with me before and knew me. My first contact with the company was when they told me they wanted to hire me and extended an offer. I was very surprised by that because they hadn't even seen my resume or anything. That method of hiring seems to have worked out pretty well so far for employee hiring and retention. The employees we've been getting seem to be quite competent and stick around.

At the time I was interviewing with another company who seemed interested in me, but expressed a deep suspicion of new hires after having been burned in the past, and told me outright that they were skeptical of me, and that I could very well turn out to be lazy and unproductive. After three interviews in three weeks, they still hadn't made any offer. So when another company comes along unsolicited and asks me to join them because they know I'm good at what I do, I took their offer. When a company demonstrates that they value you, you're going want to work for them instead of the one that doesn't.

There are a few people at my current company that were hired with an interview based on the company needing skills that weren't available from referrals from employees, but that's uncommon. I don't even know if our company has any sort of standard interview process.

Post reply on HN