Live data from Hacker News

No engineer has ever sued because of constructive post-interview feedback

blog.interviewing.io

551–560 of 646 posts

Re: No engineer has ever sued because of constructive post-interview feedback

#551
post #120

So many comments in the vein of "who has time to waste on candidates we aren't going to make an offer to?" - You are damaging your companies brand thinking this way. You want people who you reject to say to themselves "I can't wait to study up and interview here again, they said no, but I still want to work here!"

If you don't why you didn't get an offer, then you aren't worth the time to explain it. 95% of the time, you didn't give as strong answers as other candidates. The other 5% of the time, you came across as a jerk.

This is egregious and unempathetic.

Re: No engineer has ever sued because of constructive post-interview feedback

#552

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't find the article because its hidden behind Google's previously admitted coin flip, brain teasers. An interview only has one question to answer: How long will it take this person to do what I need? Everything after that is you trying to sell the company to the candidate. After you do the interviews, you pick the person who needs the least ramp time. Quietly staring at a person writing on a whiteboard while tak…

I simply have to disagree. The amount of unqualified candidates that have a decent CV and are reasonable to talk to, but completely unable to correctly write a while loop is too damn high. That is what my whiteboard questions filter out. They're super easy stuff such as "I give you as input a list of integers, return the index of the first consecutive pair of numbers that when added is 42 - you can use any language o…

> You'd be shocked how many people that write years of relevant programming experience and fail that.

That's not saying much. I'm in my 40s, been in the industry for a long time, studied CS, etc ... but put the proverbial gun to my head and ask me to perform with judgement like that, I'd probably forget how to spell my own name.

Re: No engineer has ever sued because of constructive post-interview feedback

#553
post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interview homework is in many cases more of a disrespectful waste of candidates time than fresh grad whiteboard hazing rituals.

Not if it saves the candidate time in commuting to/from interviews and spending time answering pointless boilerplate questions. ("Why did you leave your previous job", "where do you see yourself in five years", etc.)

"Where do you see yourself in five years?" I usually say some mumbo-jumbo about learning, growth, etc. Then ask the same question back: "Where do you see me in five years?" The look on their faces is usually priceless. The best when they are HR and don't know anything about my job.

Re: No engineer has ever sued because of constructive post-interview feedback

#554

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference between a take home project and an on site interview is that a take home costs the hiring company nothing, whereas an on site costs them hours of engineer time. With that being true, they can make a lot more candidates do take home tests then on sites for the same cost, meaning it’s a lot less efficient use of a candidates time.

Sorry, but this isn't true. We take a lot of time going over a candidates test. The point of the take home is so that we can get a feel for the candidates level of coding competence, ability to commit to a deadline, ability to read and follow instructions and it also helps to generate questions for an on-site interview. Not bothering to read the test through properly would be a waste of our own time, as we'd not achi…

I believe that you put a ton of time into your test, both creating it and reviewing it.

However, as a candidate I have to make assumptions on where to put my time, and if there is a take home test prior to an interview I’m likely to pass- while you are a super diligent company that carefully reviews all the responses to the screener, I’ve definitely seen those that aren’t, including companies kept taking screeners answers despite having no positions actually open.

There is an straight forward answer to this though- don’t send the take home work till after the candidate does the interview loop, or at least has a good conversation with the hiring manager. At that point hiring org has demonstrated a clear interest in the candidate and has put up “earnest money” to prove it. The candidate also knows if the position is something they are interested in. I’ve done enough hiring in the past to be confident that the interviews are more predictive of long term success anyways.

Re: No engineer has ever sued because of constructive post-interview feedback

#555

Remember to thank your Lawmaker friends as to why we can't do this. In other parts of life, all of us would gladly do this to benefit a person when it doesn't directly benefit us. But threatened with civil fines and ultimately jail time, most of us choose the sensible 'ghost em' route.

No, not in dating, the term "ghosting" came from dating. Friendships, too, doesn't come with honest actionable feedback, you know if you get invited back you "passed," but if you didn't get invited back there's no feedback mechanism.

People aren't afraid of of "lawsuits" so much (that's a red herring).

Re: No engineer has ever sued because of constructive post-interview feedback

#556
post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How much do you need to be free? https://sivers.org/richand

Being a full-time musician is a job too, with the equivalent of interviewing. If someone prefers software, let them. And you can't quit your job to live minimally if you have zero or less net worth. Expenses only go so low. Saying it's "easy to be free" is massively condescending to every person that struggles to get over the poverty line. Not everyone can just "get" gigs whenever they want.

Buddy I have has been homeless, in jail, never finished school, etc, etc, etc and this year he hopes to break the 7 figure income mark after more than a decade of mid-six figure income.

No trust fund.

No connections.

No leg up.

Yes you can do it. Excuses galore though.

Re: No engineer has ever sued because of constructive post-interview feedback

#557

I'm so disappointed to read comments on this thread to the effect of "There's nothing in it for the company but risk". I once put in about 8 hours on a take home project at a company (well known in these parts) that I had tremendous respect for, only to get an email back with "sorry, not up to par. We need someone with more experience". I asked them for a couple quick points on what I could have done better. I had ze…

Also, as far as the companies bottom line is concerned, having disgruntled rejected applicants can hurt their hiring reputation. Especially considering sites like Glassdoor

I've seen plenty of bad reviews on Glassdoor for companies providing no or vague feedback; usually the negativity of the review is in proportion to the amount of time the candidate invested and the level of feedback given.

I've also seen good reviews on Glassdoor from candidates who weren't hired but were given prompt and appropriate feedback.

Re: No engineer has ever sued because of constructive post-interview feedback

#558

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My favorite interview question is a real life issue I faced where a short sighted database design wound biting us in a pretty serious way. It's a good technical problem to talk through, and provides a lot of useful information about the candidate, but it's also an excuse to set very clear expectations that I'm not looking for the "right" answer (in real life it took half a dozen smart people a couple hours to come up…

This does seem logical: here is a hard problem we actually faced and solved; we want to hire people who, faced with that sort of problem could solve it; let's see whether the candidate can solve that sort of problem. You're also right that sharing the problem does place you in a position of vulnerability. It's perfectly possible that a candidate will think 'what a bunch of idiots to have gotten themselves in that mes…

I thought I made it clear in my initial description that I do not expect the candidate to come up with the "right" answer, and that I definitely didn't come up with the right answer in the given timeframe. Perhaps I didn't make it clear in my post that I am very upfront about those things with the candidate.

Another nice aspect is that the "solution" is contained in a 6 line git diff, and consists of standard "intermediate" level Python/Django. After talking through the problem for a few minutes, getting a sense of their instincts for approaching the problem, I give them the solution we came up with and we talk through that. Their ability to understand the solution is equally important (and not hard... it's a standard diff, standard code, nothing tricky).

To address some of your concerns: 1) The bulk of the context is easily communicated in a dozen or so lines of very standard Python/Django code.

2) Absolutely. That's partly why it's a good question. The candidate and I are acting in those roles (as much as possible, given the setting)

3) Candidates can certainly do that if they want (though for the sake of time, I generally shortcut the answer for them)

4) The circumstances under which I did come up with the solution were similarly stressful, and again, I _didn't_ come up with the solution in the timeframe of an interview, I would be shocked if the candidate did, and they know that going into the conversation.

5) Do you think we're hiring someone specifically to solve a problem we solved a couple years ago...? The question is about critical thinking, approaches to debugging/troubleshooting, collaboration, etc. These are all skills that will be very important for the _next_ unforeseen problem we're going to face.

Talking about similar problems (or problem of a similar scale) that they have faced in their career is generally where the conversation heads next (depending on their experience).

For what it's worth, in my experience it's pretty rare to get feedback from candidates (obviously for different reasons), but this particular question has resulted in several cases of someone reaching out later to speak positively about it.

Re: No engineer has ever sued because of constructive post-interview feedback

#559

I'm so disappointed to read comments on this thread to the effect of "There's nothing in it for the company but risk". I once put in about 8 hours on a take home project at a company (well known in these parts) that I had tremendous respect for, only to get an email back with "sorry, not up to par. We need someone with more experience". I asked them for a couple quick points on what I could have done better. I had ze…

> I'm so disappointed to read comments on this thread to the effect of "There's nothing in it for the company but risk".

Well, it's true, what exactly do you expect people to say? No one's saying it's good or nice for the candidate.

Re: No engineer has ever sued because of constructive post-interview feedback

#560

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference is in the first case the feedback was constructive?

Probably. Our feedback doesn't contain question-by-question breakdowns or numerical scoring. Instead we try to make it actionable, practical and specific. It looks roughly like this: "Based on our interview we think you would really benefit from studying up on data structures and algorithms. If you want to study this stuff on your own, many people find (link) and (link) useful. But there's also (link) or (link) books…

Constructive feedback is the key. No one is going to feel good about getting back a score card that says "Communication: 6/10, Technical Ability: 5/10..." etc. That just leaves you with more questions and no actionable feedback. "6/10? I'm at least 7/10!" or "I'm mostly 6-7s, why was I not given an offer".
Post reply on HN