On valuing people

I don't want to by accusatory but could it have something to do with your interviewing ability? I've interviewed a pretty extensive amount and EVERY interview I've ever had has been a conversation. In fact, I'd feel I failed as a candidate if it didn't feel like a conversation. I want to hear what you think I'll be doing, I want to know how much autonomy I'll have, tell me about my room for growth, tell me about whats in your pipeline, etc.

Interviews go both ways, its your responsibility to ensure that's the case. While I think the interviewer should try to hear your perspective, if you don't speak up or ask questions I can only hold the interviewer so accountable.

This reminds me of Kant.

Typically the argument is that social interaction is naturally engaged upon by both sides for a purpose -- that is, as means to an end. However, it can be said to be immoral to treat other humans in the same way you would treat, say, a tool.

Basically, you can engage in mutually beneficial interactions, but once you begin to interact with people in a way that neglects them (i.e. is only beneficial to you), you cross the line into immoral behavior.

For example: a typical job is a mutually beneficial arrangement. One party agrees to work and the other party agrees to pay. In this sense both parties are respecting the others' decision-making capacity. Neither is using the other in a one-sided way. However, in the case of slavery, we see a one-sided relationship in which the slave does not benefit at all, and into which he would never rationally enter. This is a case of treating someone as purely a means to an end.

Some people are really smart, kick ass on the job, and would be an asset to any company they join -- but they happen to be terrible interviewees. Maybe they're shy. Maybe they've had a rough flight out to BigCo the previous day. Maybe they've got bitchy resting face. Etc. Traditional interviews are unfair to these people.

But it goes the other way, too. Some really smart, hard working, great hiring managers are really bad at interviewing people. Maybe they're distracted by work. Maybe they don't have a lot of time to be doing interviews, and a giant stack of candidates to go through. Maybe they dislike the script they're being asked to follow as much as the person they're interviewing dislikes it. Etc. Traditional interviews are unfair to these people, too.

This is why turning the interview into a conversation, to whatever extent possible, is an imperative. As the interviewee, you have to jump through the necessary hoops to establish your qualifications. You have to check the boxes the HRbots demand. But once you've done that, you should steer the dialogue off-script (in a friendly and polite way, of course).

Once you and your interviewer are ad libbing, shooting the shit, being honest with each other, you do each other a favor. You're allowing one another to get a real sense for the role and the fit. In that phase of the conversation, someone on the other side with "[no] interest in having an actual conversation" will very quickly reveal as much. But just maybe, he or she will surprise you.

It should: I referenced the second formulation of the categorical imperative in the post.