No engineer has ever sued because of constructive post-interview feedback • Hacker News Board

Re: No engineer has ever sued because of constructive post-interview feedback

#571

Post by jrandm » Fri, Feb 07, 2020, 4:14 PM UTC

kamaal wrote: post #434

jrandm wrote: post #426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If someone says write a grep-like thing in Python so we can see how you write something like that in Python and someone else submits anything in Perl that's not an XY problem. It's a basic failure to meet clear requirements.

If some one wrote grep in Perl, and they are considered incapable of writing the same in Python. I have now doubts on the evaluation capabilities of the hiring committee. Software world is huge. You will have learn, forget, relearn and learn new things all the time. You don't change programmers every time a new requirement on a new technology comes along. Which is why if some can write grep in Perl, they can also wit…

I didn't say anything about capabilities.

If a base requirement is the thing is implemented with X, like wanting a table made of teak wood, and you give me a table that doesn't have any teak in it you've ignored half of my requirements. I don't care if you assessed my needs as being better met by oak and you made a fine table, I need to put a teak table somewhere and you completely failed at that task.

The point of a take home test that says build foo in Python so we can see it in Python is not "to see if a person can get things done," it's to see how a person gets things done in Python.

Re: No engineer has ever sued because of constructive post-interview feedback

#572

Post by Kalium » Fri, Feb 07, 2020, 4:18 PM UTC

Apocryphon wrote: post #208

Kalium wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are definitely options, but it's worth bearing in mind that contracts are for when for things go wrong. Are you willing to sue someone for saying something bad after getting post-interview feedback? Seems unlikely to help with bad PR, but I'm not an expert. Legal might not be the right tools for this. Some industries (consulting, as mentioned by others) seem to have standardized ways to give feedback.

It would at least deter most people from acting on anger over feedback. Those who aren't dissuaded by the contract would have acted in anger even if they didn't receive feedback.

Not to be disagreeable, but have you considered that now a person would have two things to react angrily to - feedback they don't like and a contract attempting to silence them?

This seems to my rather inexpert evaluation like the sort of situation that, if possible, people and companies might consider avoiding. But obviously YMMV.

Re: No engineer has ever sued because of constructive post-interview feedback

#573

Post by pingyong » Fri, Feb 07, 2020, 4:28 PM UTC

rendall wrote: post #430

atomicnumber3 wrote: post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've just finished a job search, and the company I ended up going with (with the best offer, by far) was one of the only ones that didn't want a take-home project. With several of the companies, I managed to (via either vowing silence to recruiters, or having an inside guy) get feedback on my projects. Nobody volunteered feedback willingly. And honestly, based on what feedback I did get, I see why they didn't want to…

I don't do unpaid take home projects that are expected to take more than an hour. Even if I "pass", now I work for a company that has already demonstrated a willingness to occupy my time. Ditto if the take-home project does not have clear acceptance criteria: that's how it will be to work there. It's a real red flag.

I don't know. The problem is that there is almost no way to evaluate software engineers. Have a degree from a decent university? Cool, but how do we know how many actual larger programming assignments that included, and if those were group assignments, how much was your work? Have 10 years of experience? Cool, but how do we know what you actually worked on, and what the quality of your work was?

It's just difficult - and while interviews are decent, whiteboard tasks are usually useless. If you have your own or contributed to open source projects, that's pretty good too for assessing code quality, but not everyone has that.

Ultimately paying for assignments would probably be the best solution, but not everyone can do that either.

Re: No engineer has ever sued because of constructive post-interview feedback

#574

Post by heedlessly3 » Fri, Feb 07, 2020, 5:04 PM UTC

vector_spaces wrote: post #246

I'm so disappointed to read comments on this thread to the effect of "There's nothing in it for the company but risk". I once put in about 8 hours on a take home project at a company (well known in these parts) that I had tremendous respect for, only to get an email back with "sorry, not up to par. We need someone with more experience". I asked them for a couple quick points on what I could have done better. I had ze…

I think not giving candidates any feedback has to do with companies being lazy than fear of being sued.

If you have 50 candidates do a takehome assignment, then you will need an engineer to do code review and write comments on everything. Whereas it's easier to execute the code and have an engineer glance at the code quality. Their time is better spent looking more deeply candidate's who move onto the next round. I'm not saying it's morally right, but it's just more time efficient for companies to do this and that's how the power dynamics unfortunately work.

Re: No engineer has ever sued because of constructive post-interview feedback

#575

Post by wendyshu » Fri, Feb 07, 2020, 5:10 PM UTC

zippergz wrote: post #114

plake wrote: post #29

Because giving good feedback is hard work, and candidates won't always take it well (even if they don't sue). If the employer has already decided not to hire you, there's just not that much in it for them. For what it's worth, as an interviewer I'm happy to give feedback in person, at the end of the interview, if the candidate asks for it. It's much easier to do when you're both in the same room, and asking e.g. "is…

I hate it when candidates put me on the spot at the end of the interview, because it feels like they're trying to get me to tell them (or at least hint to them) if they're going to get an offer or not. Even if that decision were wholly within my hands (it rarely is), I'm not ready to discuss it with them at that point. The other way it sometimes goes, if I do cave and give some feedback, is that they try to disprove…

Nothing wrong with being transparent. And maybe they really can do the thing you're assuming they can't.

Re: No engineer has ever sued because of constructive post-interview feedback

#576

Post by kenhwang » Fri, Feb 07, 2020, 5:21 PM UTC

vsareto wrote: post #529

kenhwang wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In our case, it's not an iron-clad no feedback allowed policy. We're just much more careful about giving it, approval is given on a case-by-case basis. A good typical whiteboard interview naturally includes hints, feedback, and collaboration. After several hours of it, we have a very good idea of how well they may respond to feedback from members of our organization. Honestly, I love giving feedback. I love helping c…

>The harsh reality is, many people that don't pass on the interview are people we do not want in the industry. The good ones we give every hint and help we can. It's pretty bold of you to claim your interview can accurately qualify candidates across the entire industry. Maybe you have found an interview that works for most companies? There's chests of gold waiting for you if you have.

I can pretty boldly claim that I can filter out "definitely not". I'd say most interviews can too. There are a handful of companies that do this for you.

These are the candidates that can't FizzBuzz or even write a line of code and/or are humongous asshats.

Re: No engineer has ever sued because of constructive post-interview feedback

#577

Post by hondo77 » Fri, Feb 07, 2020, 5:23 PM UTC

planetzero wrote: post #399

nkingsy wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a tried and true practice in dating, and it translates well to hiring, which is basically the same thing. Most people, ESPECIALLY people who ask you for feedback, do not want feedback. They want to get in a fight with you. Edit: I don't remember ghosting anyone personally in either setting, but it's happened to me plenty. Getting upset about it just means you're new to the experience.

A couple of years ago, I was ghosted by a company after being interviewed. A few weeks later, I realized that the guy that interviewed me was just hired as a consultant by the company, and convinced the boss to hire him instead of me for my job. How did I find all of this out? Over A month later, they called me back. This was after I had been strung along by the business owner and the guy that interviewed me for over…

> I never thought I would be ghosted like this from a potential employer.

Get used to it. It sucks but if I got upset like I used to when a company ghosts me (I'm not just talking about after initial phone screens but even after lengthy on-site interviews), I'd be dead from the stress by now. It happens so often these days. Some companies behave decently but it seems that many more companies are following the lead of recruiters and behaving like jerks.

Re: No engineer has ever sued because of constructive post-interview feedback

#578

Post by wendyshu » Fri, Feb 07, 2020, 5:28 PM UTC

Sounds like managers are risk averse because they'll get the blame if something goes wrong but not the credit if it goes right.

But I don't think the risk has to be so big. By the end of an interview process, candidates I talk to already know where I think they should improve because that's part of the back and forth discussion in the interview itself. I also like to actually get to know the person a little bit which helps me judge how they'll respond. I'm also not afraid to make an offer on the low side instead of rejecting outright, etc.

Re: No engineer has ever sued because of constructive post-interview feedback

#579

Post by plake » Fri, Feb 07, 2020, 5:32 PM UTC

zippergz wrote: post #114

plake wrote: post #29

Because giving good feedback is hard work, and candidates won't always take it well (even if they don't sue). If the employer has already decided not to hire you, there's just not that much in it for them. For what it's worth, as an interviewer I'm happy to give feedback in person, at the end of the interview, if the candidate asks for it. It's much easier to do when you're both in the same room, and asking e.g. "is…

I hate it when candidates put me on the spot at the end of the interview, because it feels like they're trying to get me to tell them (or at least hint to them) if they're going to get an offer or not. Even if that decision were wholly within my hands (it rarely is), I'm not ready to discuss it with them at that point. The other way it sometimes goes, if I do cave and give some feedback, is that they try to disprove…

It probably depends on the candidate pool, but I've had a few interviews where the candidate can tell they missed the bar, and genuinely just wants advice on how to work on it.

Definitely if they start trying to haggle, or pressure you into something, that's a hard pass, I'll say whatever bullshit it takes to get them out the door. I'm happy to help out the former at the expense of fielding the latter, though I can understand why not everyone is!

Re: No engineer has ever sued because of constructive post-interview feedback

#580

Post by jakobegger » Fri, Feb 07, 2020, 5:37 PM UTC

ChuckNorris89 wrote: post #527

shkkmo wrote: post #520

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their job should be to help manage the litigation risks so that the companies can assume those risks that provide sufficiently high returns.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but outside of the SV bubble(see Europe) most companies don't see feedback from rejected employees as a high return ("who cares what some people that were not good enough for us think?") since the're never in the firing range of reddit/twitter mobs like the big FAANGs.

So you think that companies don't care what candidates might tell their peers...

But at the same time they're sponsoring meetups and conferences, hosting coding contests, sending people to career fairs, buying huge ads on job platforms to advertise company culture, just to get people to apply?

I can't talk about all of Europe, but here in Linz a lot of companies struggle to get candidates, and they spend a lot of money and effort to get a good reputation as an employer.