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

Stop eliminating good candidates by asking them the wrong questions

hbr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 155 posts

Re: Stop eliminating good candidates by asking them the wrong questions

#21

Post by bheadmaster »

chii wrote: post #13
devnullbrain wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He wants to be right. A job interview is not like an exam, it's like dating. An opportunity for two parties to decide if they can work together. Hiding who you really are to 'pass' is a bad foundation. That's why I don't like the conclusion of the article. Anand didn't fail the interview because the criteria were wrong - the interviewer failed because they suck at being an engineering manager.

> it's like dating ... Hiding who you really are to 'pass' is a bad foundation. you'd be surprised at the amount of people who fake themselves for the date.

To be fair, not all of us can be socially competent mentally healthy people who enjoy life and regularly stop to smell the flowers. Some of us just suck, some of us are miserable, so we have to put on a fake persona in order to entertain the other person enough for them to actually give us a chance. In a way, dating is all about entertaining and being entertained.

It's either that or stay lonely.

Re: Stop eliminating good candidates by asking them the wrong questions

#22

Post by rr808 »

For my current job I got grilled with leetcode style questions. Lucky I'd done a few before so knew the tricks. Now I work there the job is basic crud style work, nothing fancy required. Employer also hires grads almost exclusively from Ivy League universities and they mostly suck. Makes me look good. :)

Re: Stop eliminating good candidates by asking them the wrong questions

#23

Post by karmelapple »

kayodelycaon wrote: post #8

I’ve had this experience. I passed all of the interviews only to be failed by a senior manager that had some kind of expectation I couldn’t figure out. About 6 seconds into a phone call, I’d failed for not matching whatever expectation he had for how a phone call should go. As far as I can tell, he expected me to do everything his way without being asked. That was truly bizarre. I think I dodged a bullet there.

I think you did.

When the actual hiring manager, or someone above that person, shows you a concerning aspect of themselves during in the interview, that’s them trying to impress you, demonstrating their best behavior. It won’t be better after you get hired.

Re: Stop eliminating good candidates by asking them the wrong questions

#24

Post by phkahler »

I agree with most of it but not this:

"Interviewees are often told to use “I” to get credit for work done, but “we” is probably a more realistic depiction of how work gets done."

I've had too many candidates talk about "we" and the general project, or what the team they were on did. But when I try to get at what they specifically did I get nothing. Sure we need team players, but not just cheerleaders. Take credit for your work!

The weirdest was one guy who I could tell probably did a lot of good stuff but wouldn't say so. It was like he was coached to always talk about the "we".

Re: Stop eliminating good candidates by asking them the wrong questions

#25

Post by mewpmewp2 »

rr808 wrote: post #22

For my current job I got grilled with leetcode style questions. Lucky I'd done a few before so knew the tricks. Now I work there the job is basic crud style work, nothing fancy required. Employer also hires grads almost exclusively from Ivy League universities and they mostly suck. Makes me look good. :)

I think most work is CRUD related, and I also think that it's actually counter productive to hire leetcode or university crowd for these jobs, as they will naturally try to treat CRUD problems as the problems they have been studying and practising, which would mostly yield something that could be done in a few lines of code as something that is really over engineered. They will start trying to figure out problems that have been solved already for them with countless of libraries and tools, because that's what they have been learning. Either following certain design principles, and over engineering, causing massive amounts of boilerplate code, or spending way too much time on trying to consider and optimise for certain types of edge cases, which libraries would handle for them anyway.

Re: Stop eliminating good candidates by asking them the wrong questions

#26

Post by DandyDev »

gnfargbl wrote: post #14

The set up of this article doesn't make a lot of sense. It describes a case where "not a good fit" was in fact exactly that; the candidate wanted an open workplace where he could express opinions and grow his skills, the hiring manager wanted an experienced resource who would do as they were told and not rock the boat. Both types of workplace exist, and both types of candidates exist. The question for me is why the a…

I think the point of the article is that you should not want to build a type-B workplace. If you want innovation - and healthy companies should want that - you should hire people asking critical questions

Re: Stop eliminating good candidates by asking them the wrong questions

#27

Post by gedy »

chii wrote: post #13
devnullbrain wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He wants to be right. A job interview is not like an exam, it's like dating. An opportunity for two parties to decide if they can work together. Hiding who you really are to 'pass' is a bad foundation. That's why I don't like the conclusion of the article. Anand didn't fail the interview because the criteria were wrong - the interviewer failed because they suck at being an engineering manager.

> it's like dating ... Hiding who you really are to 'pass' is a bad foundation. you'd be surprised at the amount of people who fake themselves for the date.

I think many folks are there for sex, and have no problem faking to get it.

Re: Stop eliminating good candidates by asking them the wrong questions

#28

Post by Eumenes »

gnfargbl wrote: post #14

The set up of this article doesn't make a lot of sense. It describes a case where "not a good fit" was in fact exactly that; the candidate wanted an open workplace where he could express opinions and grow his skills, the hiring manager wanted an experienced resource who would do as they were told and not rock the boat. Both types of workplace exist, and both types of candidates exist. The question for me is why the a…

Cause its HBR. Conventional HR wisdom doesn't believe in nuance when its coming from the employers side - everything must be repeatable, process driven, and very corporate. Deviating off of that, is scary because it introduces bias into the mix and HRs responsibility is protecting the company. Having a hiring process that is personalized to a specific candidate is a no-no.

Re: Stop eliminating good candidates by asking them the wrong questions

#29

Post by Turing_Machine »

williamcotton wrote: post #19
devnullbrain wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He wants to be right. A job interview is not like an exam, it's like dating. An opportunity for two parties to decide if they can work together. Hiding who you really are to 'pass' is a bad foundation. That's why I don't like the conclusion of the article. Anand didn't fail the interview because the criteria were wrong - the interviewer failed because they suck at being an engineering manager.

It’s nothing like dating. Employees need a paycheck. It’s an asymmetric relationship. This becomes very apparent during economic downturns! There’s really no use searching for the perfect job when the market is flooded with candidates and you have young children and mortgage payments due, yet you have to act like every job you’re applying to is some gift you’ve been searching for your entire life!

> Employees need a paycheck. It’s an asymmetric relationship. This becomes very apparent during economic downturns!

While this is certainly true, there still are usually enough jobs that fit the broad parameters of "pays enough to eat and take care of my rent". If you have a choice of a good boss at lower pay, or an a-hole boss at higher pay, you should take the good boss every time.

We spend 1/3, or more, of our lives at work, and life is far too short to spend any of it taking orders from an unpleasant, incompetent, or abusive a-hole. Not only will this make your time at work miserable, it will also lead to poor sleep and spending far too much of your "free time" brooding about your job. In that type of situation, you're not giving them 8 hours per day, you're giving them 24 hours per day. Eventually that's gonna take a toll on your physical and/or mental health. Don't do it.

Re: Stop eliminating good candidates by asking them the wrong questions

#30

Post by devnullbrain »

chii wrote: post #13
devnullbrain wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He wants to be right. A job interview is not like an exam, it's like dating. An opportunity for two parties to decide if they can work together. Hiding who you really are to 'pass' is a bad foundation. That's why I don't like the conclusion of the article. Anand didn't fail the interview because the criteria were wrong - the interviewer failed because they suck at being an engineering manager.

> it's like dating ... Hiding who you really are to 'pass' is a bad foundation. you'd be surprised at the amount of people who fake themselves for the date.

It's still a bad foundation
Post reply on HN