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 say this for two reasons. There's a genuinely nice kind of feedback, no feedback, and a vicious kind too. If I interviewed someone and they weren't up to scratch for whatever reason, I could say that they're not up to scratch for what I want and I don't need to give a reason. I could be more specific, but only when it suits me, the employer. They haven't got the experience I need, I could tell them that. Not suited to the job? I could tell them that too. I can be as vague as I want, it's my choice. Maybe their asking salary is too high. These are all reasons I could genuinely give to a candidate when rejecting them. Would I be specific if they were a threat to my codebase? No. And if I was a complete dick, I'd just reject applications with no feedback whatsoever, not even a rejection letter. They're applying to me, I don't owe them anything, right?
Most of my job applications in the past have never got a response. It's a lot easier if you don't want to employ / deal with someone to simply ignore them after the failed interview etc. There's no obligation to respond to every application you get with helpful tips for next time. If you get as far as interview, it's nice to know why you didn't succeed but you shouldn't expect it.
As for playing with them like your cat plays with injured mice, I don't want to even apply for your company. What the hell? If you're asking about liability, that might be a sticking point. Or, more seriously, how do you think telling an applicant the reason for not getting the job would make you liable? Unless you don't employ people who are black, disabled, female and so on as a matter of course. If you told someone they were the best damn whatever you ever saw, and afterwards they didn't get a job as a whatever, maybe - just maybe you could be liable. It would be very, very weak though.
As a company, you don't owe anyone an explanation, at all in most countries. So long as you're doing things in accordance with law anyway.
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...
Do whatever is standard for your organization when you decide not to hire someone. Doing anything else, from throwing their resume in the trash the next day to telling them that they should brush up on skill X, could be seen as litigation fodder.
Also, don't post on slashdot about it, he may be incompetent, but he may still read slashdot.
You thank them for coming in, validate their ticket, and hope you never see them again.
act crazy... bitch slap one of your coworkers in front of him. Cut up some fruit in the kitchen and use a really sharp knife. Grin while you're doing it. Then show him your scarification.
Scream something random to people in the next room at unpredictable intervals.
By the time the interview's over, a callback will be the last thing they're wondering about.
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.
Certainly, I think an interviewer has zero obligation to spend his time explaining to somebody what they did wrong. Certainly not for free.
That said, I think in many circumstances, it can be a good thing to explain to somebody why they didn't get the gig. If they undertake a course of self improvement, they could potentially apply for a different position in a few years and prove a really valuable asset. Before I left my last job, there was a huge amount of bitterness related to internal job applications for position transfers. People would be rejected with no idea why. It was killing morale. I don't know if they ever improved the situation, but it would have been really easy to say,
"Look, Suzie Q, when we open up to public applications, most of the people applying for this type of position have qualifications X,Y, and Z in these amounts. You only have X, and only in this amount. So, it's not personal, but I think we are going to keep looking. If you really want to move into this position, we really think that only A and not B will be the best route to getting Y and Z."
Instead, with really vague requirements, people thought they were perfectly qualified, and had no idea how to get better-qualified. They also thought that it was just a matter of personal grudges.
With external applicants, I think it is less important, but it doesn't usually hurt. I suppose you might consider it valuable to keep some of the stunning idiots in the industry in hopes that they will work with your competitors. But, you may eventually work with them too. And, you will have to maintain their code. Probably safer for everybody just to point out to them how clueless they are.
And, when I'm away from my day job, I do theater stuff. I was recently involved in some auditions to expand an improv troupe I am in. Not everybody got individual commentary, but the folks dismissed in the first round did at least get a general explanation. Everybody who made it past the first cut got an explanation of what impressed the director, and what he thought they could most work on - both the folks who made it and those who didn't. Personally, I wish we could have taken a little more time to offer personal advice to some of the folks in the first round. I would have liked suggesting that the hot chicks take classes that I can sit in on and watch them learn. Especially one blonde. I tried to convince the director that she should join the troupe and just not be allowed to say anything. I would have been cool with that.
You should definitely not say anything to this prospective employee. I am not a lawyer, but the reason that these interviews are setup in such a manor that the interviewer is not the person telling the interviewee that they do not get the job is for legal reasons. Telling them this would potentially open up your company to a lawsuit (frivolous or otherwise). This is not to mention the hot water you could be in for stepping around HR in the interview process.
You may feel you have an ethical obligation to set this guy straight, but you also have an ethical obligation to your company to not expose them to a potential lawsuit (or to bad PR from this guy telling others what you have said). Also, as crass as this may sound, would this action result in increasing shareholder value for your company? Professional ethics requires that you at least consider that question before taking an action such as this.
It sounds like your heart is in the right place for wanting to tell this guy the truth, but really it isn't your job. It's the job of this guy's professors in school (through grades), and the job of his colleagues when he does land a job (through peer review or otherwise) to tell him that he is not as good as he thinks he is. Besides, if someone is that full of them self, do you really believe he would listen and not take offense?
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").
A lot of employers are not even contacting you AT ALL after the interview. I mean, I can understand why you can't contact everyone that sends in a resume, but jeeze... if you've shown enough interest to interview a person, you should at least tell them that they DIDN'T get the job.
There's a story about Art Rooney, long-time owner of an American football franchise in Pittsburgh -- the Steelers. He had to fire his quarterback, who wasn't getting the job done. As the QB was leaving, Rooney saw him from his limo and shouted at him: "I hope you become the greatest QB who ever lived!"
The QB's name? Johnny Unitas.
If I've learned nothing else in life, it's that building good relationships with people will get you further than anything else. I've also learned that it's important to serve as a mentor to people.
If you tell them in a kindly manner that they're not applying for a job they're qualified for, and that they should modify their job searches to meet their existing skill sets, you saved them tons of job-hunting trouble. (If you express it well and they still don't pay you any heed, it's their own damned fault.)
Having been on both sides of that interview table, I know how much it matters to that individual. And both your personal success and your company's success depend on the relationships you build.
The key thing about building relationships is that you have to have that function activated all the time; you can't just turn it on selectively. If you're selective, you become a two-faced suck-up, and people will know that's what you are -- to say nothing of the opportunities you'll miss when you treat someone like shit and they one day turn out to be big-time.
Every person who ever succeeded faced rejection at some point by someone else. Be damned sure that they remember those things. They remember who gave them assistance along the way, and those who did not.
Moreover, when that one rejectee does succeed, and tells all his admirers and fans about that time you shot him down for a job, is he going to talk about how you helped steer him in the right direction, or how you were an asshole?
Don't be that asshole. Be like Art Rooney. Help the candidate out.
...I would love to get feedback from employers. It's too bad that we live in such a litigious society where you can't even give advice to people who don't make the cut.
"What are you doing looking for work if you can't handle rejection?"
People who don't deal with rejection well have bills to pay too, you know.
That's not the way to go about it. You hire these failures, and then you slowly crush their soul and destroy their lives, then sue them. Isn't that what business is all about? As if I'm going to hire the best and brightest. That's no fun.
... and then they built the supercollider.
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
1. You might be wrong. Maybe what you think is important is really not the key factor in other jobs that are related. For example there are many very successful VB shops, but few Java and C# people out there who will give them the time of day. And programming techniques and methodologies vary widely.
:)
2. The candiate may have had a bad day. I know I have had some bad ones, where I was tongue-tied on occasion and just did not see what my interviewer (or customer) was getting at, though it was clear as daylight later.
3. There are misunderstandings. People hear one word, and understand another. Accents, culture, word usage vary widely and interviews are usually too short to establish contexts and get used to one another.
Once we hired a guy who interviewed brilliantly, even had fanstastic code samples (impresive video games he had written on a basic PC - that later turned out to be very buggy). After a year we concluded that he could never write enough "if" statements to special case his bugs out of existence, and he would never be able to tackle problems in any other way. But we missed it in the interview.
Basically hiring people is risky business
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.
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!
One time we had a candidate that looked good on paper, but when we brought him in to meet with the team, it was oil and water. Very badly. This guy was absolutely the wrong personality for the rest of the team even though he brought the technical goods.
He emailed us and asked why he hadn't gotten the position. We made the mistake of politely explaining what our issues with him were. He used that explanation to kick off some sort of lawsuit against our company.
I actually have no idea how it ultimately turned out. HR told us never to do that again, legal took charge of the matters with every expectation to fight this tooth and nail (especially to avoid a precedent against our company). I presume it's either still outstanding, he lost, or he gave up, because I think I would have heard if it had gone against us.
If someone asks us how they did in an interview now (and we're not planning on offering them a job), it's, "Well, we have a lot of candidates to examine, we'll contact you if we're interested in a second interview or need more information. If you have questions about your performance in the interview, we suggest you contact a career counselor who is better equipped and has the appropriate training to answer questions like that."
Slay a dragon... over lunch!
You start believing crap from people less able then yourself because they have a job and you don't. I've seen very able people give up looking and take jobs in different feilds because each rejection makes them think they are less capable.
The lesser reason is that they deserve some help in their job seeking, given that they have gone to the trouble of attending the interview.
But reason #1: I want to see how they respond to friendly advice. I don't want to hire people who can't take advice.
Consider that the problem could be you. When I've been "corrected" on coding problems in the past; it typically indicated that the interviewer was asking the wrong questions. Don't expect people to write perfect error-checking, choose your favorite algorithm, naming convention, ect.
For example, I once had to write an algorithm that had to handle money. I chose a slow and reliable algorithm, and the interviewer chastised me to not writing the fastest once possible. (He never told me he was looking for speed.) When I politley explained that I always choose a reliable algorithm that can be replaced with a fast one, as needed, he refused to listen to me, and probably thought that I was a risk to his code base.
In another internview, I was chastised for not performing extensive (and redundant) input checking. Typically, in whiteboard coding where the goal is to demonstrate an algorithm, one does not worry about minor details. Again, the interviewer probably though that I was a risk to his code base because my first reaction to his problem wasn't to follow his error-checking style.
So, perhaps instead of correcting someone's code, ask them why they wrote it the way they did. The answer to, "Why did you choose a slow algorithm?" or "Why aren't you performing null checking?" could be valid because the interviewer thinks you're looking for something else.
No, I will not work for your startup
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
On the other hand, a lot of the time you'd just be inviting the person to come back with, "Ah, great! So if I go learn more about XYZ, then I'm hired?" Maybe you can't really fully grok this until you've been on the hiring side for a while, but most often the lack of a particular skill or expertise is not the problem in and of itself. It's an indication of deeper problems, which are not usually easy (or even possible) to give people constructive feedback on without taking lots of time talking it over with them.
For example, if I'm interviewing an engineer who claims to have both Java and C++ experience, one of my typical initial easy questions is, "Tell me some of the differences between the Java and C++ object models." The ultimate point of that question is not to find out how much you know about the differences between Java and C++. If your answer goes no further than describing which keywords are used in which language, then chances are you aren't the type who likes to dig beneath the surface of the tools you use and think about why things work the way they do. And if you give me a really thorough answer without having to stop and think about it, it tells me you probably know what you're talking about, at which point I dispense with most of the other easy questions on my list.
The trouble is, if someone completely flubs that question (and I don't get the sense it's just due to nerves or whatever) then what am I supposed to tell them? "Sorry, come back when you're more inquisitive" doesn't exactly work as constructive criticism. And "Sorry, you don't know the difference between these object models" is even less useful because that was never the point of the question to begin with -- and what's more, it implies that if only they had skimmed that chapter of their "Java for C++ Programmers" book the night before, they'd be walking away with a job offer.
It sucks to be turned down for a job without knowing why. I have very smart friends to whom that happens over and over again and they find it intensely frustrating. But at the same time, the "why" is not always easy to describe, and is even less easy to describe in a way that doesn't come off rude or condescending and that doesn't give people false hope. And of course as an interviewer, you're trying to fill a job position, which probably means that every minute spent helping out a rejected candidate is one you're not spending reading the next resume in the stack on your desk.
I think I know the agency you're talking about. Is it that one with all the worthless, low-life scumbags? Oh wait, that's just about all of them.
It's okay, I'm not bitter.
I've been in the position of not getting a position several times, the form "sorry you have not been successful at this time" letter is one of the most annoying things in the world. I want to know why I wasn't successful. Did my interview technique suck? Did I lack confidence? Was I presenting a bad attitude? Was I plain under qualified for the role? Was I over qualified? OK that last one has probably never been a reason for me, but you get the idea. There are so many reasons why you might not get a job it would be nice if they'd narrow it down.
Knowing what's wrong helps you to address the problem. If you're aiming for roles that are above your ability you need to know, so you can aim lower. If you lack confidence - as I know I do; one employer did have the decency to tell me that was why they decided not to hire me, even though I got through the HR interview, tech interview and the second sift - it's moderatly annoying, but at least it means you know you're not unqualified for that kind of role, you just need to work on presenting a more confidence persona.
If the candidate refuses to accept the reason then it really should be their problem, not the company's. Unfortunatly giving someone a reason as to why you didn't hire them, especially those with a bad attitude, just gives them an excuse to blame you. But to be honest, they're probably going to try and blame you anyway.
It always kind of amused me that, if you apply for a civilian role at Essex Police, and you're registered disabled, you're guaranteed an interview and will also get a debrief on your interview if you're not succesful. Of course they're only doing it so that they can't be accused of descrimination. Which is exactly why other employers won't give you a reason.
Yeah, I had a sig once; I got bored of it.
Anyway since their application, resume, and references were adequate for them to get to the interview, it would be a good time to figure out what they actually know, and how they wound up confused about the requirements for the job (Even if you know theyre just lying). Sometimes when 8 usd/hr is mentioned the applicant expects near zero experience to do the job. Five extra minutes of good PR time can help the image of your company /department.
Storm
There are two assumptions I make once I get as far as the interview process:
Given these assumptions, at the end of every interview I always ask:
"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}?"
I've found this to be an extremely useful question. It helps you as an interviewee improve with each consecutive interview. It also provides a saving throw. For example, perhaps you eliminated a bit of experience you had with Solaris systems in an enterprise environment on your resume (something has to go or it ends up being an autobiography)...and it so happens that they have a Solaris server and were looking for someone with at least a passing familiarity with that OS.
So yes, I think you should tell them in a non-prickish way what areas they could improve in to become a competitive applicant for the position they applied for with your company.
I've seen several posts here from employers saying *they* are the ones giving a job...why should they do anything for the interviewee. I found this outlook to be pretty amusing. I go into every interview with the attitude that its the company who needs me. I have a valuable skill set, the employer advertised because they need someone with my skillset. I've never gone for more then a week or two without work and I've never been fired. I've left jobs because employers had the attitude that they were doing me a favor by employing me. . . . and then that employer was stuck sifting through incompetent applicants for the next several weeks to find someone they now need once again.
You should never treat your applicants like your doing them a favor. Provide helpful advise to those who don't make the cut and the next time around you might see him with the {certification, education, experience, etc} that you wished he had the first time.
Now you have an applicant that is not only qualified, but has demonstrated a deep desire to work for your company, acts on constructive criticism, and self motivation.....sounds perfect? Don't you think?
Having had the opportunity to sit on both sides of the desk, let me voice my personal opinion. I can honestly say that showing someone areas to improve in will build trust, growth, and interest in your company. If "Jenny Sue" came to the team interview and performed horribly, but was really positive, give her reasons to try again. Don't say you'll call them back. If you tell the person "We are not interested", you push them away with a negative attitude and who knows what kind of negative web publicity they can provide your company. If you tell the prospective employee "This is a suggestion for improving on ..." or even "Your might want to learn more about ...", you build interest from the prospective employee. Tell them to work on those areas and improve their knowledge and skills and you want them to come back in a month or so. If the person is interested they will come back with more knowledge. I had to learn more for my last 3 jobs. Each time with more knowledge and a positive attitude.
This is a way to have this person start building their work skills and knowledge to your work enviroment without paying to train them. From there selection for hire becomes a process of where to fit them in with minimal training on how to work within your company. What is better than having a positive person come in to your company knowing they progressed to your standards, eager to be a team member. The result is a bad interview turned into a good future employee, with room for growth.
--MikeW
It's all about RTFM.
If a candidate isn't going to work out, that's the way it is.
But if you want to be a world class outfit make sure you always
send a letter or make a phone call thanking the person for their
time. Throw in some compliments and warm best wishes... etc.
If you don't extend this courtesy it is your company's reputation that
gets hurt. People talk. It is a small world. Pretty soon, good candidates
you would love to hire start coming in with negative perceptions of your company
or worst yet, just don't come in at all.
As for playing with people - well, then my friend the problem isn't the candidate
but you.
I'm frequently looking for a job (I do a lot on contract) and the standard reply is: We're sorry, but we currently have decided not to extend you an offer. We encourage you to please apply for any future openings...
Be nice and friendly, but keep it short and simple. You don't need to give a reason or maybe you chose somebody else, the job market is fierce. The nicest thing that one company did for me was reimburse me for the gas and hotel.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
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.
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!
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.
Except the article is about employers who refuse to give candidates the information with which to improve themselves. Where should this information come from?
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!
... is to find good people.
You're not there to educate every schmuck that applies for your position. You're supposed to simply find the best candidate (that meets your bar) in a reasonable amount of time.
A secondary purpose of interviewing is to get people excited about your company. EVERYONE should leave your interviews wanting to work with you. That generally fosters good will in your area prompting qualified people to apply. A great way to make people not want to work with you is to be critical without the pretense of looking out for their best interests the way a friend, peer or mentor might.
I never let on how poorly people are doing. I simply alter my approach, simplify my questions and wrap up early. I always ask if they have any questions for me about the position or company. I always take a moment to tell them something exciting about what we do. I always thank them for coming. I always show them out with a handshake and a smile and then inform my recruiter regarding how I want to follow-up.
With a little luck, those that don't get invited back know someone who will.
These opinions guaranteed or your money back.
There are too many people in tech as it is, that's why I shoot to death anyone I choose not to hire.
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
I love your statement, "... dangerous to any code base". that's just flawless, really.
... sometimes the prospective employee isn't the dangerous one, rather, it's the inflexible management who is dangerous to the codebase.
I'm currently working for a company I interviewed for out of desperation. I really needed a job close to home, as I was about to have a baby. The job was mine, easily, based on my skillset and their desperation for someone to 'bail them out'. After 6 months of doing basically nothing productive at this company, I find myself, on a daily basis, watching my manager, errrr "DIRECTOR!" [don't steal his rank from him!] tearing this company to shreds with his empty promises and lack of self control.
"My cock is HUGE! And behold as I whip it out, and write magnificent code! I will solve all of your problems with one swift stroke!"
This poor COBOL bastard couldn't tell me the difference between preceding-sibling and ancestor-or-self, let alone the difference between a private or public var, yet, this fuckmonkey is in charge of this small family-owned statistics business. Ridiculous.
"I am the Bratt and you shall beat On me with your baseball bat!"
Dangerous territory. Feedback could be actionable. This is lawyer territory.
Unfortunately it seems to be the bozos and flatlines and know-nothings who are vindictive. Much safer to give no feedback for someone who's clearly a waste of oxygen.
I've told people who seemed good but weren't good matches, "Look, you'd be better off doing X, Y or Z, rather than what we need at the moment." But the clearly unqualified get a polite letter or phone call and that's it, no matter how much I want to say "If you were flipping burgers, I'd cross the street and eat at Taco Hell."
Any sufficiently advanced technology is insufficiently documented.
Perhaps in treating this entire affair as a zero-sum game, the employer is being irrational.
Let's say you call a spade a spade, tell him he sucks, and should try something else. Rather than trying to be a codemonkey who couldn't pass for a code algae, he decides to become an elementary school teacher, a fire fighter, or assembly line worker. Even were I completely selfish, it's in MY self interest for things like teachers, fire fighters, and assembly line workers to exist because they benefit me by increasing the labor pool for those jobs and thus lowering their cost to ME. I could not say anything, have him wallow in the labor pool, eventually get welfare, and make me pay him MY tax dollars.
But hey, I'm just conservative, not an ass.
-- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
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.
No matter what business your in, being a jerk and telling someone they are a "danger to any code base" is just bad business. The cost to you of being a professional, and telling them they are not qualified in a polite manner is 0, the cost to you of being a jerk may be 0 or it may be all the business you would have gotten from whatever company he does end up at, or all the business/potential recruits of his friends. In fact it never pays to be a jerk to anyone, from the janitor to the idiot you just fired. You never know when you are going to have to work with someone again, or need something from them. Being rude or playing game with someone because you are in a position of authority over them and they can't do shit about it, doesn't make you a big shot, it makes you an asshole. If someone has no chance at a position, tell them so as politely and directly as you can, and stop wasting their time.
A common interview question is: "Do you have any questions you'd like to ask us?" Much of what the nice people who want to help a candidate want can be done if the interviewee asks a simple question:
"What qualities do people who have been most successful at this job display?"
You can answer that in a way that highlights what the candidate needs to work on. Your answer is not about this candidate but about people who were successful at the job. You are not judging the candidate's qualifications but explaining the job. It is easier to be clear about this if the candidate is the one who has phrased the question this way. So if anyone here is applying for a job and going for an interview, memorize this question.
I actually am a lawyer. However, this answer does not create a lawyer-client relationship with anyone who reads it. You should rely for legal advice only on an attorney you have retained and who has a professional duty to advise you after becoming familiar with the facts and the law of your situation.
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.
Alas the UK is rapidly following the US as a litegous society and so we now have to take care with what we say as you never know how the other person will behave, which is a shame really because I was a fan of giving feedback when asked.
You can teach just about anyone to play piano. Somehow, not many people do that well...
Music is easily taught. So is coding. But both require some talent to get very good at.
I know lots of people who write code. The accounts clerk; the help desk guy; etc. I know lots of managers who think "I can write a macro in Excel - this coding shit is easy!"
I know very few people who can approach a problem, analyze it, write down the requirements, and solve the problem in code - where the solution is not a swamp of unimaginable proportions.
Just as I know very few people who, having been taught music, can sit down at a piano and pound out something that makes you weep with joy and sorrow at the same time.
Coding well takes a mix of talent, dedication and hard work. A good coder is something of a master craftsman, close kin to a talented artist.
Anyone can do HTML. You check out MySpace lately?
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.)
I like all the parent posts that have generated SLEWS of negative responses in this thread, primarily because the parent posters have been sold on the lie of the "almighty buck." I.e. it's not worth their or their employer's time and money to give a second thought to a really bad candidate for a position. They seem to not be considering that sometimes their HR department flubs the position description, and that in turns makes the interviewee think that they are applying for something they are qualified for, but in reality are clearly not qualified for or wouldn't even WANT to apply for if the wording on the job description had been more accurate in the first place. Secondly, it's possible that they are clueless, but haven't been shown how clueless they are in a tactful way so that they can learn from their mistakes and better themselves. Or third, it's possible that the interviewee is a genuine jerk, liar, and/or moron, and when found lying should be told directly that their lying cost them a job - maybe they wouldn't waste everyone else's time the rest of their lives continuing on in their lying, jerkwad, moron ways. That interviewer *could* (although I admit, it's highly unlikely) just turn that person's life around by exposing them to their own idiotic, destructive behavior.
But no, somehow some of you think that you are making the company worth so much more because you didn't spend the $10 worth of the company's (and your own) time to send a tactful note (or $2 to do it there, on the spot) on to the failed interviewee as to why they got rejected for the job. Is an extra $10 in the company's pocket really going to make that much of a difference to the company, or more importantly, to your paycheck? The answer is, unequivocally, NO!