131–140 of 209 posts
I don't consider anyone obligated to respond to a resume or application, but stopping communication in the middle of the interview process is utterly disrespectful and does not speak well of your company's values and culture.
One of my top lessons I've learned doing successful startups: 1. Recruiting is the #1 job of any startup CEO, and the #1 determiner of corporate success. 2. Up market, down market, side market, it doesn't matter: You will get better employees if you treat candidates with respect and you will be more competitive. 3. It's a lot of work for the 95% of clowns out there you interview, and there's a push towards automated…
> There is absolutely no upside to doing a good job, and it takes a lot of time to do so. I've also learned this the hard way. I've conducted about a 100 interviews in 2 years and didn't get compensated any for it despite being one of the most critical part of the company. Conducting interviews is also very tiring and time consuming, I'm estimating that two interviews in a day and your day is gone. I also evaluate it…
So why would you do it? Such a big red flag. It means that employers will expect doing work for free (in some countries this is illegal) and potential employees should know about it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I sincerey hope nobody reads this and thinks "I should start ghosting too". We want less ghosting in this process, not more.
Operating with integrity in a domain where nobody else is is a shortcut to getting fucked.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There is absolutely no upside to doing a good job, and it takes a lot of time to do so. I've also learned this the hard way. I've conducted about a 100 interviews in 2 years and didn't get compensated any for it despite being one of the most critical part of the company. Conducting interviews is also very tiring and time consuming, I'm estimating that two interviews in a day and your day is gone. I also evaluate it…
> and didn't get compensated any for it So why would you do it? Such a big red flag. It means that employers will expect doing work for free (in some countries this is illegal) and potential employees should know about it.
Despite not helping in this current company, conducting a lot of interviews taught me a lot for sure.
The ghosting problem is fixable in 2 seconds with any LLM + AI recruiting pipelining tool. That is the solution to this. Someone will figure it out in the next three months or less. On the other hand, here is the reality: In a "hiring company friendly" environment, where they cut all their expensive recruiters / or all recruiters / or simply don't care / or treat recruiters as disposable this is what you get. We are…
The whole point thing about having half a breakdown after being ghosted is not going to be remedied by receiving a generic rejection email.. even the actual response he did get after pestering them was just "you were good but another guy was better" and yeah this is 90% of all anyone will ever say anyways. Like you can simply assume that 1. a better candidate was found or 2. the job opening was already closed because…
FTA: > The effect of getting ghosted for me, and likely others, is impactful. The narrative in my head played out like this: “was I really so bad that they wouldn’t even tell me no?” It was also a chilling effect for my projects that involved generative AI. I didn’t want to work on them. Every time I logged into my Github, I was reminded of the company because I still had a fork of the take home assignment. It took a…
When someone writes a kind or genuinely useful letter with feedback when I get rejected, I greatly appreciate it. An automatic or generic rejection is the same as nothing to me. It has no actual information in it. And requiring a recruiter to reply to all rejections personally might feel nicer to you and less nice to them.
The new normal? This has been the case for years for almost all job applications. Maybe if you're lucky and the company has put you through like 4 rounds of interviews you might get feedback, but the general rule seems to be that useful feedback for an interview is the exception rather than the norm. And heck, even that isn't something you can rely on. I've had a fair few interviews get about 80% of the way through t…
Every company is different and will have different requirements and expectations.
Unless you are doing something universally bad (like didn't shower before going out), there is not much that feedback could help you with other than make you start acting like someone you are not.
If you acted on the interview and you got hired, you'll be expected to continue the act probably for as long as you work there. Which ultimately leads to quick burn out and self-hate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> is one of the lowest value-add tasks you can bring on, from a purely selfish / incentive structures perspective. At one place I worked, interviewing was one of the check marks you could participate in for promotions.
But that's exactly what it is then: a check mark. I can interview dozens of candidates, and then add a total count to my self review. There is no incentive to do a good job (how would that even be evaluated?..).
Depends on the company. At my current workplace, the candidate is given an option to provide feedback at the end (either through a form or an email), and all interviewers are also required to submit written notes on how everything went down.
Given that a candidate at the onsite will get interviewed by 4-5 people, with each of them providing a very detailed set of notes, it would be fairly trivial to smell out a misbehaving interviewer, if one cared to do so. What actually happens at the end of the day with those notes and candidate feedback, that’s the part i am not sure about. Once they get submitted to the hiring committee (or HR), it is out of my hands.
But just saying, they do have ways of evaluating it, just on a less precise scale and more on a “bad/good enough/amazing” scale. With only the “bad” outcome raising any eyebrows/having any meaningful effect, and with 99% of them getting the “good enough”/“amazing” ratings. And how often the signal for that “bad” rating gets caught is also not something I know much about.
P.S. Your assessments and notes are all preserved in the centralized hub, so you (and some others) can always access them later as well. And, sometimes, you indeed have people checking them out for assessment or such. Especially during your first couple interviews, you have a person supervising you and taking notes in parallel as well, and then you discuss them and they give you improvement suggestions and such.
This is NOT the new normal, and we should NOT accept it. Everyone here should do their part; for example, I'm more often a hiring manager and will not tolerate ghosting anyone who gets to any interaction with engineering. IME it's lazy recruiters who are responsible for this, and they're about as big of a part of tech as an accountant, i.e. very little. I don't understand why many people are hesitant to name and sham…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> and didn't get compensated any for it So why would you do it? Such a big red flag. It means that employers will expect doing work for free (in some countries this is illegal) and potential employees should know about it.
I'm doing it for my future career, not for them that's for sure! Despite not helping in this current company, conducting a lot of interviews taught me a lot for sure.