The rise of never-ending job interviews

The idea is to drive out older, less-pliant potential employees, in favor of newer ones, who can be molded into a shape the corporation prefers.

Have you ever seen a couple that has gotten married later in life? Many times, it may be a second (or more) time for one or both of them.

They need to make massive compromises. Both have gotten used to supporting themselves, and keeping their own counsel. They generally both have a lot of property, maybe grown kids, careers, etc. Usually, they don't actually need each other, for more than emotional support. They each do fine, on their own. It's a relationship of equals.

It can be a challenge to make it work, but when it does, it's amazing. I have known many couples like that.

I understand why corporations don't want to put effort into working with older folks, but it can be well worth it.

So many times, when I see these awful, Jurassic-scale disasters, made by companies that are staffed exclusively by younger folks, I say to myself "That was a really great idea, but they completely pooched the release. Why didn't anybody raise any red flags?"

The answer is generally, that no one on staff had enough experience to understand the ramifications of many decisions, and often, they were afraid to countermand ideas put forth by their superiors.

Couple that with 20-something CEOs, who are often fearfully insecure, and you have a recipe for disaster.

1. The candidate was a complete and utter fraud and their previous (and apparently well-regarded) employers were too stupid or negligent to notice this, wasting literally millions of dollars (48-21 * $100,000+).

2. Something about the interview failed to let this person demonstrate the skills that had kept them employed for two decades. Maybe their mind went blank under pressure, or at the end of a long day. Maybe they got hung up on something trivial (that a quick search—-or nudge from the interviewer—-would have resolved), or the question was unclear.

Yes, they are absolutely crutches. All great tools, libraries, and abstractions are crutches. I want programming to be easier for myself and my employees.

The only problem with a crutch is that you might end up not having it when you need it. That's not an issue in this case.

> here I am thinking about something more substancial then just a missing ';' or a lack of a closing "

The original example that I was responded to was about an interviewer who expected their code to compile. That would include incredibly pedantic things.

For example, if you're the kind of person who uses single quotes in JavaScript and then you're suddenly writing a different language where '' is different from "" and `` and $"" and whatever, you could easily make an unimportant mistake that prevents compiling.

1. On my first chat with a candidate, I layout the entire interview process. I acknowledge that it is long and I preemptively thank them for going through the process and say that we value their time. I make sure our recruiters can reiterate the process as clearly as I can.

2. I let the candidate know that at any time if they want to pull out, that is a-ok, and that they are welcome to apply again in the future in good standing. I also tell them that during our coding assignment, we really mean it when we say it's ok to ask for more time, and that we don't judge them negatively.

3. I tell the candidate that if at any point we decide to decline, that I will send them a written letter of feedback so as to make the process worth their time. This isn't always easy, but it's always been appreciated. Sometimes it is hard to write these letters, how do you tell someone multiple interviewers didn't like them? I do it by pressing our interviewers to state clearly what didn't come across well, and then I relay those things to the candidate. Sometimes even still the letters probably aren't super satisfying to the declined candidates, but I do my best and hope everyone realizes that job hunting in general is rarely satisfying.

Basically, transparency, honesty and specifically thanking them have gone a long way for me. I fully understand that an underfunded/understaffed startup might balk at the feedback part, especially when lawyers can get involved. But offering up items #1 and #2 to candidates should just be table stakes of your hiring process.