Slashdot Mirror
Do You Tell a Job Candidate How Badly They Did?
skelter asks: "I have been lamenting with friends in the industry about interviewing woes and the candidates that we find. Consider a hypothetical job candidate comes in after some how making it through screening. In the team technical interview they prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that not only is he (or she) not as adequate as he thinks he is, but has demonstrated that he is a danger to any code base. Do you tell them? Quietly step away, usher them out and say nothing? Play with them on the whiteboard the way your cat plays with injured mice? Should you leave them as their own warning to others? Is there any obligation to guide them to gaining real experience? Can you give them any advice or is it all liability?"
I never tell a rejected candidate how badly they did. First off, once they're rejected (assuming they're really rejected rather "reply hazy, ask again later"), there is zero reason to spend another second more on them.
Second, from an employer's perspective, it may in the narrow self-interest of the company for such a person to go be a drain on its competitors. Where's the rational economic incentive to discourage that?
-Isaac
I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. For Entertainment Purposes Only.
If I decide against a candidate, I've arrived at saying nothing beyond "Thank you for your time, we've decided not to extend an offer." Anything else, and I've had people keep bugging me with things like they can change, or give them another chance, or would I...
I saw a job ad yesterday that clearly stated that the application must have 2-6 years experience. Then went on to state "Candidates with 7 years or more of commercial IT experience are unlikely to be considered by this particular organisation".
Knowing that 18 years experience was just a little over that, I opted not to try.
I can imagine that they probably would have stated the reason for rejecting my application. (This was not advertised as a junior role).
It seems a fairly disturbing trend that most IT jobs now insist on candidates having experience that would seem to preclude anyone over 30.
I was hiring a programmer for a project, and had one I liked. I Googled his name, email address, got nothin'. Then I Googled the *newsgroups*. This guy posted on alt.drugs.hard that he had just moved to my city, and was lamenting how hard it was to find good heroin. He had also posted to something like alt.alien.contact, how aliens had been contacting him, and he had picture proof, in the dust patterns on his T.V. He linked to the pic on the web, but it was less than convincing.
So what did I tell him? Nothing. Just that I had hired someone else, and thanks for his time.
There are 01 kinds of cars in the world. The General Lee, and everything else.
I, like others have posted, typically don't tell the interviewee how they did. The standard line I use for those that inquire is "after the interview, I make an assessment of your skill level and appropriateness for the job, I then give this to the hiring manager (which sometimes is myself) and it's up to them to figure out if those variables meet their criteria". While it would be nice to tell everyone how they did, from a practical standpoint it often leads to bigger troubles (I know this from experience). One other aspect is that this day and age, one has to be very careful about what you tell a candidate, it could be that "you didn't think they were a good fit", which often means that you thought they were a putz, but of course you can't say that (that they were a putz). So I just leave the legaleeze to those that are trained in it (HR).
BTW, I never "toy" with candidates. AAMOF, I try to go out of my way to keep them relaxed and not discouraged if things aren't going well. The point of the interview is to try to assess their abilities and appropriateness for the job, not to make myself feel superiour or have a team of folks that "interview well" but can't code worth a darn. I also don't want to exclude people because they "don't interview well". Some folks just get nervous, and I would hate to pass on someone good just because of that (after all, how many of us know other techies that are awesome at what they do, but have a few issues with their "social graces").
When I was starting out I would have appreciated employers contacting me after an interview and telling me "you're good, but you got to get better at X and Y". I do the same now every time I go through a hiring cycle. I've found that most developers (that's who I hire, obviously) are by and large grateful at you for doing that. There's always going to be the occasional dick that replies with "well fuck you I didn't want to work at your stupid company anyway", but I could really care less.
Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
I suppose someone is dumb enough not to hire based on that.
You ARE aware that people post there using other people's names? Just for this very reason? Any posting there with a real name ought to be viewed under a large cloud of suspicion.
I guess not. Good thing you posted here under a nym, otherwise I'd guarantee that your name with be in that group tomorrow.
First of all: Tell people they haven't got the job, in a letter preferably. Nothing worse then not knowing. If you have critisism, disguise it and make it in regards to other candidates (the successfull applicant showed a much stronger knowledge of xyz). Chances are they know their skill shortcomings but occasionally they won't and you have to be sure that you don't critisize something so heavily it destroys them.
This is an absurd response. Major corporations, in particular Citigroup, Microsoft, and IBM (we're talking Fortune 100 here) routinely have their interviewers -- nay, ENCOURAGE their interviewers -- to give feedback to job candidates who are interviewed but turned down. This is true on the private side too, at major law firms and at consulting and accounting firms (I personally know this to be true at McKinsey, Boston Consulting Group, Bain, and PriceWaterhouseCoopers -- though one of them eventually hired me). Anybody with a degree from a top b-school will tell you that recruiter/interviewer feedback is ESSENTIAL to the process.
Please, as a candidate for interviews, I hate it when companies have some sort of super secret policy regarding how well I did in interviews.
This is especially true given us poor college candidates. Understanding the finer points of interview etiquette is not accomplished instantly. (I have been criticized for dressing up too much and for not dressing up enough!)
Also, think about it: Don't you want other companies doing the same thing, so that you get better candidates coming in through your doors as well?
Need help treating your acne? Come here!
What are they going to sue you on? There's no tort claim here unless you brutally lay into them. There's no law or liability for giving rejectees reason.
Discrimination.
Suppose you, as an interviewer, say, "I'm sorry, you don't have enough experience with technology X."
And suppose the interviewee actually does have quite a bit of experience -- enough that he's considered an expert at technology X in the community. You might not know this, because you don't specialize in technology X, let alone know the names of important but obscure community members. The interviewee isn't going to believe your reasoning. Suddenly, your honest, if superficial, assessment becomes "an excuse". Indeed, if the interviewee thinks he knows technology X, he has a claim to file suit.
There are way to be helpful without dealing with these kinds of liability issues. For instance, offer a standardized test. When you reject someone, tell them to brush up on technology X, because they bombed that section. This is good for everyone involved. As an interviewer, you get a more accurate assessment of each interviewee's technical skills. The proficient interviewee gets the same. The rejected interviewee gets honest feedback.
I inform people of their lack of talent rather frequently. You are being no friend at all to let someone continue down a path that only causes death and / or destruction. Sometimes... that happens. Many software bugs have indirectly killed people.
I've told friends that they bombed the interview, why they bombed, what areas need improvement, and if they have any hope. Sometimes they don't, so I put it out there bluntly and honestly. There's always time to change a career.
There's a fairytale that says something about accomplishing anything you set your mind to. It's a lie. I will never be an NBA player no matter how hard I try. I will never be able to do matrix multiplication in my head. People need to get rid of this childish notion and recognize their limits. Focus on what you actually have a hope of being good at.
Sorry, who the fuck in IT is going to create a position for $8 an hour? I've seen interns get paid more than that, for fuck's sake. Any dolt can flip burgers for better pay.
My book, podcast
Fado, Fado ... I once was interviewed by DEC for a job doing compiler development. I had my minimal college compiler development experience against another candidate interviewing the same day. (They flew me out half way across the country, he was local) The other candidate got the job and they told me why. "Another candidate is being hired. He has more experience in compiler development." Turns out he actually had 5 years of compiler development. Although I understood the job went to someone else, it was still pretty cool to be considered for it. And a different group that had my resume found out I interviewed for Technical Languages and interviewed me rearranging their schedules, my flight back home, and everything else to get me to stay over. I got that job, so all in all it was a great day! Latter I worked with the same group on some "off the scope" projects. So burning bridges from either side is not warranted ... The guy you turn down for one position may be sitting next to your cube the very next week anyway!
- Tjp
I am in wallow with my inner money grubbing capitalistic pig. ... Oink!
Companies need to be better at telling someone what they're doing wrong or what they need. It took me nearly 18months to find work after getting out of college. I was pretty close to suicide at one point. The always optimistic, never tell you anything bad attitude of the human resources people was probably the worst thing. Negative feedback is far more valuable, and is actually far more comforting than a HR person continually telling you that things are in process, that there are more candidates to consider, then getting a letter dated from a week earlier telling you that the position has been filled.
When companies did tell me what I was lacking, it was always work experience, never education. I was really left wondering how on earth I would ever obtain experience as none of them were willing even to give me an entry level position. Of course, part of that is that an entry level position today is not what an entry level position was a decade ago. The real entry level positions have been farmed out to Asia, and the ones left tend to require 5 years of experience or more because of the glut of people with 20years who are unemployed. I really lucked out, I happened to be at my class reunion when an old teacher of mine happened to wander in, asked me how school had gone, and what I was doing now, and then told me that he was now the CEO of a little software company and that he could use my help.
On the other side of the desk, I do the homework, ask the network about the corporation, and see the interviewer. If I don't get the job, so be it. If the interviewer comes across as an egotistical snob, so be it also (although I do hope they see the Mensa membership on my CV.) If they choose to snot off in public (I had that once) - they deserve what they get (watch "Good Will Hunting" for a clue.)
I do appreciate good feedback from an interview, and I am astute enough to stop an interview if I have misinterpreted the responsibilities of the position. It saves time and attitude all around. As is mentioned beforehand, the nature of the criticism must be temperate, such as "You made an impression on your knowledge of the tasks, but we found another person with the coding style that fit our system." Hopefully, they brush up on the current practices for the jobs in question.
I all fairness, I am not a coder (though I did put FORTH on a SwTPC 6809, in assembler) so I may be off base here.
Dave Lawson
dot-sig.
I told him "Getting your fscking feet off my desk would be job 1 and getting the fsck out of here would be job 2". He looked rather surprised and wondered what he did wrong...
The day Microsoft creates a product that doesn't suck, it will be known as the Microsoft Vaccuum Cleaner!
Right now I'm living in Ambler, AK. (check it on google maps if you'd like) The people here speak inupaq, and refer to themselves as eskimos.
If you get an error, type "OVERRIDE" or "SECURITY OVERRIDE" and then try the optimize command again.
"Would you have any suggestions on how I could improve my interview or any areas of expertise that could increase my desirability as an {IT,developer,Crack Dealer}?"
There's a similar suggestion in "Ace the Interview" (or something like that). The recommendation is to ask the hiring manager (assuming you're talking to the hiring manager) if they have any reservations about your skills/qualifications/etc. The idea is that:
1) This shows good communication skills -- you're going to ask for appropriate feedback and act on it
2) You're a thoughtful candidate -- most people stutter "Er, no questions." at the end of the interview
3) If you're really close but there are some second thoughts then you can correct misunderstandings.
Why is it that salaries/wages in the US for even schlock jobs are so much higher than they are in the rest of the world? Is flipping burgers somehow worth more there? It depends on where the job is, and who's paying you to do it. In New York State the minimum wage is $6/hour, and there are probably lots of jobs around the state at that level. I think you're unlikely to find many of them in New York City though, because the cost of living in NYC makes $6/hour look like working for whatever change is in the couch cushions most other places. San Jose may be a similar story, but $14/hour still sounds high. Union schlock jobs can also result in ridiculous pay, depending on the employer and union. In the 80's, I remember General Motors hiring janitors to start at $18/hour. In some American industries, unions are organizations that help improve working conditions by creating parity between labor and employers to insure safety and fair compensation. In others, they're extortion rackets that suck the lifeblood out of companies because there's nothing else for them to justify their dues with.
I would flip this around a bit. I have done a lot of hiring. Both to protect my company from lawsuits and to avoid giving unwelcome advice, I choose NOT to bring up why I am not hiring someone. If they made it as far as an interview, I send them a form "no thank you" email.
On the other hand, if they've asked for feedback, so far I've always given it. I just don't make it my business to offer unsolicited advice.
For that matter, if I don't get an offer after an interview, I almost always call the hiring manager to ask why. Not only have I learned a lot, in one case my calling to ask why I didn't get the job led to a turnaround, and me getting the job after all!
There is just no way that you are the pine-scented air.
After years of getting it wrong as an interviewer I now insist that all job interviews must include a written exam as a major part of it. The candidate is told that they had 30 minutes, that no one has ever finished it, and that it is designed to allow us to verify how accurate their CV claims about knowledge/experience are and so includes questions that not all candidates might be able to answer. Any dept head that claims they can't produce an exam paper is told that until they do they clearly don't know what the job entails. (they also get marked down come their next review) After they have completed the test we go through the answers with them which allows the interviewer to develop a greater understanding of the applicant's ability and thinking. As this is done "out loud" the applicant should go home with some understanding of the what we were looking for. When we come to choose a candidate the process is a lot more reliable than the normal "tell me why we should hire you" routine. That said it is pretty hard when you walk in after 30 mins, skim through their answers, and realise that you've got a complete bullshitter sitting opposite you. Your want to say "Mr Blogg, either you dreamt this CV whilst on drugs or you stole it, good bye", but your actually thinking "How can I get rid of this guy asap without pissing him off?".
In my previous job, I had been maltreated and, worse, ignored by the senior management team -- they were and are dead set to deploy MS Exchange for our university mail system. I found a better job and whilst waiting out my three-month notice period, I kept smiling, even when told I was going to get a demotion in the old job. I'm glad I didn't unleash my ire on the fools in management because I still have friends there and could well want to return, once the managers have cycled.
Now I work for a large company and do phone-screens and in-person interviews in addition to my day-to-day engineering work. I always try to be polite and clear to the candidates: they're under enough stress as it is. On several occasions, a candidate has thanked me for the informative interview -- these are usually the candidates I'll be rejecting, but at least they are getting something of value for their efforts.
I don't really care whether the candidates remember me or not, since we have such a high attenuation curve for the interview process. However, it's important that the candidate leaves that process with a positive impression of the company and an idea that he would at least like to work for us. After all, even failed candidates can recommend that others apply to us.
I can actually relate to the concept of playing with a candidate like a cat with an injured mouse: this may be how some people see our interviews, especially if we keep asking them to clarify a given point. However bad it feels to do this, it's in the candidate's best interest for us to persevere and winkle out the knowledge they have so we can report back more completely about their skills.
You could always give them feedback because, well, ya know, it would be a nice thing to do? You shouldn't go through life doing what you *have* to do, sometimes it's good to do things because it's *nice* for someone else.
I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
How can 7 USD/h pay for the rent and living? In third world countries perhaps...
Well, I don't know exactly about prices in the US, but in Switzerland, where things are admittedly quite expensive, I certainly couldn't survive with so little money - (with 42 hours per week) it would be just a little more than the rent for a small apartment.
In many countries, you would hardly find anyone who is ready to work for so little money, and to expect experience or quality for so little money is just crazy in my opinion. Generally, I think it is good when people prefer to work rather than living on social benefits, but I also think that one of the functions of a correctly working welfare system is to prevent a job market with extremely low salaries. In many European countries, no employer would find people working for 7 or 8 USD/h because people get significantly more from welfare, and I think that's right. If an employer is not able to pay decent salaries, his business is obviously a failure, and there is no point in such failed businesses living on and exploiting people. If the US had a better welfare system, they would go out of business. Unemployment would be slightly higher, but large parts of the population would earn more because people couldn't be exploited because they wouldn't be so scared of destitution.
Workers should have a certain amount of pride, and not being ready to sell one's labor for about a fifth part of its worth and donating the rest to the employer does not have anything to do with an attitude of "money, money, money".
I know *plenty* of people who applied for positions they knew full-well they weren't at all qualified for. They were, however, good talkers and experienced in telling the H.R. "gatekeepers" all the standard things they like to hear, in order to move them forward to the interview.
When you're out of work and grasping at straws to find a way to get your next paycheck, you'll sometimes try things like this - just to see if a potential employer is clueless enough to hire you anyway. (Or in some cases, you may REALLY want a completely different position with that company that you think you won't have much chance of getting without having a foot in their door.)
Sometimes, it actually works. (Years ago, I knew a guy who did 48 hours of crash-course studying on Oracle database administration, in order to try for a tech. support job with Oracle. He really just wanted the job because they were located in Colorado, and he loved skiing.... He got it, and managed to learn enough while he was there to fool most people into thinking he knew the stuff all along. Last I heard, he still worked for them a few years later.)