People are still bad at gauging their own interview performance • Hacker News Board

Re: People are still bad at gauging their own interview performance

#51

Post by marblar » Thu, Sep 08, 2016, 9:01 PM UTC

nsxwolf wrote: post #38

Yhippa wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I absolutely judge a company by the interview process and the questions they ask. "Would I want to work for a company where the employees pass their given process?"

A company's bad interview process might have nothing at all to do with the rest of the company. At this point, isn't it generally accepted that all tech interviewing sucks, and companies would do better throwing darts at resumes? If all interviewing is bad, and all companies are not bad, there's no benefit to judging a company based on that process.

> A company's bad interview process might have nothing at all to do with the rest of the company.

Everyone who works at a company, got there by passing through the] interview filter. A bad interview process has everything to do with the company, particularly in organizations that have grown a lot in the recent past.

Re: People are still bad at gauging their own interview performance

#52

Post by wpietri » Thu, Sep 08, 2016, 9:03 PM UTC

nsxwolf wrote: post #38

Yhippa wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I absolutely judge a company by the interview process and the questions they ask. "Would I want to work for a company where the employees pass their given process?"

A company's bad interview process might have nothing at all to do with the rest of the company. At this point, isn't it generally accepted that all tech interviewing sucks, and companies would do better throwing darts at resumes? If all interviewing is bad, and all companies are not bad, there's no benefit to judging a company based on that process.

People have been talking about the terribleness of tech interviewing for years. If a company isn't able/willing to improve important processes, that's definitely a sign to me.

Re: People are still bad at gauging their own interview performance

#53

Post by nsxwolf » Thu, Sep 08, 2016, 9:07 PM UTC

wpietri wrote: post #52

nsxwolf wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A company's bad interview process might have nothing at all to do with the rest of the company. At this point, isn't it generally accepted that all tech interviewing sucks, and companies would do better throwing darts at resumes? If all interviewing is bad, and all companies are not bad, there's no benefit to judging a company based on that process.

People have been talking about the terribleness of tech interviewing for years. If a company isn't able/willing to improve important processes, that's definitely a sign to me.

But then, apparently, there are virtually no good companies to work for. So most people shouldn't bother worrying about it.

Re: People are still bad at gauging their own interview performance

#54

Post by bcbrown » Thu, Sep 08, 2016, 9:12 PM UTC

fecak wrote: post #31

Sleaker wrote: post #21

>some portion of interviewees are losing interest in joining your company just because they didn’t think they did well, despite the fact that they actually did. Maybe this is because the interviewee feels partly abused, as if communication isn't a two-way street. I think interviews would be less terrible if interviewers actually told you at the end that you did above/aswell as/below expectations, and/or why instead o…

>I think interviews would be less terrible if interviewers actually told you at the end that you did above/as well as/below expectations This happens quite often in phone interviews. My clients have regularly told candidates "We'll be inviting you in" at the end of a phone interview. The issue with this for on-site interviews is that they tend to be with multiple individuals/groups, and getting those groups together…

> usually there will need to be some discussions among the panels.

The way we've handled that (startup, ~30 devs) is that the VP of Engineering goes last, and will go around getting quick reactions from everyone on the loop. If everyone says "I'm all for hiring", the VP will go ahead and let the candidate know we'll be making an offer. If anyone says "I'd like to discuss", then we don't give feedback until after getting together to discuss the candidate.

Re: People are still bad at gauging their own interview performance

#55

Post by unimpressive » Thu, Sep 08, 2016, 9:14 PM UTC

wpietri wrote: post #50

Yhippa wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I absolutely judge a company by the interview process and the questions they ask. "Would I want to work for a company where the employees pass their given process?"

When I was at Code for America I redid their hiring process to optimize for interviewee experience rather than hiring manager experience. One of the things that really struck me at the time was that traditional interview processes are built around a notion of worker surplus and job scarcity. They make very little sense when the opposite condition applies. Even little things like contacting all applicants within 24 ho…

One of the things I've noticed is that scammers (ask for your SSN/birthday/etc, bad sales jobs, etc) are the most attentive with callbacks and 'hiring'. Because it's all they do and they actually optimize their hiring for applicant satisfaction.

Re: People are still bad at gauging their own interview performance

#56

Post by vonmoltke » Thu, Sep 08, 2016, 9:15 PM UTC

wpietri wrote: post #50

Yhippa wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I absolutely judge a company by the interview process and the questions they ask. "Would I want to work for a company where the employees pass their given process?"

When I was at Code for America I redid their hiring process to optimize for interviewee experience rather than hiring manager experience. One of the things that really struck me at the time was that traditional interview processes are built around a notion of worker surplus and job scarcity. They make very little sense when the opposite condition applies. Even little things like contacting all applicants within 24 ho…

I agree with you, but here's the thing. If the vast majority of companies are running like that and succeeding, does that not suggest that there really is a workeer surplus and job scarcity, and that impressions to the contrary are self-imposed?

Re: People are still bad at gauging their own interview performance

#57

Post by pyb » Thu, Sep 08, 2016, 9:19 PM UTC

wpietri wrote: post #52

nsxwolf wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A company's bad interview process might have nothing at all to do with the rest of the company. At this point, isn't it generally accepted that all tech interviewing sucks, and companies would do better throwing darts at resumes? If all interviewing is bad, and all companies are not bad, there's no benefit to judging a company based on that process.

People have been talking about the terribleness of tech interviewing for years. If a company isn't able/willing to improve important processes, that's definitely a sign to me.

This has been a deepening mystery throughout my career. I see most companies are utterly uninterested in improving their recruitment processes, and are at the same time frustrated that most projects fail or don't quite deliver. Meanwhile, the best engineers I know have to look for a really long time to find suitable jobs.

Re: People are still bad at gauging their own interview performance

#58

Post by unimpressive » Thu, Sep 08, 2016, 9:19 PM UTC

Kephael wrote: post #20

These interview training programs seems to be really reminiscent of coding bootcamps and appear to have grown rapidly in a very short period of time. I think I'd almost prefer interviewees being judged based on the schools they attended and companies they worked at. I'm not sure that I find the ability to cram for data structures and algorithms questions to be indicative of intelligence and problem solving skills. Sc…

>I think I'd almost prefer interviewees being judged based on the schools they attended and companies they worked at.

I'd be surprised if you're saying this as somebody who doesn't have a track record of working at big name companies who went to a big name school, but you probably are so.

Re: People are still bad at gauging their own interview performance

#59

Post by red_blobs » Thu, Sep 08, 2016, 9:22 PM UTC

vonmoltke wrote: post #43

Jemmeh wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I am a business owner, and I need someone to create a website for me to do something, the first thing I will reach for is someone who has already done similar projects and has a track record of getting it done. Teaching people is expensive, takes time (my website could be making me money -right now-) and doesn't always pay off. Whenever possible, it's often preferred to grab someone who can just hit the ground run…

> If I am a business owner, and I need someone to create a website for me to do something, the first thing I will reach for is someone who has already done similar projects and has a track record of getting it done. If that is the case, what you need is a contractor , not an employee , and you should hire accordingly.

I disagree. Aside from an entry level position, you want someone with previous experience.

Google wouldn't hire someone to manage their datacenter with no previous experience managing anything like it.

Re: People are still bad at gauging their own interview performance

#60

Post by WalterSear » Thu, Sep 08, 2016, 9:22 PM UTC

nsxwolf wrote: post #38

Yhippa wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I absolutely judge a company by the interview process and the questions they ask. "Would I want to work for a company where the employees pass their given process?"

A company's bad interview process might have nothing at all to do with the rest of the company. At this point, isn't it generally accepted that all tech interviewing sucks, and companies would do better throwing darts at resumes? If all interviewing is bad, and all companies are not bad, there's no benefit to judging a company based on that process.

>At this point, isn't it generally accepted that all tech interviewing sucks, and companies would do better throwing darts at resumes?

Except I've had good interview experiences. So, no, there are better and worse kinds of interviews. Just because it is an overwhelmingly neglected aspect of the industry is neither here nor there.