

Managers to Millennials: Job Interview No Time to Text - spking
http://www.cnbc.com/id/100684583

======
slg
_The trend reflects a generation of Millennials—ranging in age from 18 to
34—who grew up texting and using smartphones and social media_

This is somewhat tangential, but I think grouping this entire generation
together and attributing their behavior to social networks, texting, and/or
the Internet doesn't make any sense. 34 year olds likely weren't able to join
Facebook until their late twenties and 18 year olds likely don't even remember
a world without widespread Internet use. Those experiences are wildly
different and will therefore affect people in wildly different ways.

~~~
pjscott
Indeed it doesn't, and the whole basis of this story is very anecdotal and
shaky. But that's just it -- it's a _story_ , not a factual report about
what's actually happening in the world. A disturbing amount of journalism is
storytelling, and the facts are just the raw material from which the story is
crafted.

In this case, the story is a retread of a tired old classic: "Kids these days
are doing some pretty crazy stuff!"

~~~
bicknergseng
New article idea:

Millennials to journalists: anecdotes are not accurate representations of
large groups of people.

------
UK-AL
I agree answering using the phone in interview is wrong. You should be polite
in a interview.

However I have noticed any quirk can put you out of a job. Stutter? Slightly
eccentric? Aspergers?

Its seems you are under a lot peer pressure to conform to a set standard and
not deviate. Then companies wonder why they can not innovate. Fact is a lot of
brilliant individuals(leaders, technically brilliant) are a little 'odd'
sometimes. Sometimes brilliance is the other side of the eccentricity coin.

~~~
untog
I see this opinion often on HN. Perhaps it is because a lot of us are somewhat
socially awkward developers at heart.

The truth is that eccentric geniuses aren't all that hirable, despite their
genius. After all, Steve Jobs got fired. If you can't be relied upon to turn
in results, you're a potential liability. It might be better to hire someone
with less genius and more predictability.

That's not to say that there are no jobs out there for eccentric geniuses-
maybe they just have to be in charge (see Steve Jobs again), or just work by
themselves. But I don't think we can argue with hiring managers who don't take
on a risk. The distribution of responsibilities means they wouldn't get any of
the credit if the employee turned out to be fantastic anyway.

~~~
hkmurakami
Technically, Jobs resigned from Apple rather than having been fired.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Jobs#Apple_Computer>

~~~
UK-AL
I think "resigned" has to be in speech marks.

------
textminer
Where's the FUD about recent college grads in the 1960's interviewing for jobs
with full, unkempt beards, and making allusions to radical politics?

~~~
sutterbomb
Or how about the story of the crazy cat lady that is 45 and doing the same
thing as the crazy cat lady that is 25?

------
pmcg
> "Newly minted college graduates soon entering the job market could be facing
> another hurdle besides high unemployment and a sluggish economy. Hiring
> managers say many perform poorly—sometimes even bizarrely—in job
> interviews."

First paragraph immediately stuck out. How is this a hurdle for new graduates?
The fact that other graduates perform poorly means a given graduate will have
an easier time than otherwise.

------
lobotryas
I'm surprised to hear that that this is a trend, even though my anecdotal
experience seems to confirm most of what the article says. Ex: one recent
candidate flat-out refused to do the simple coding problem with which I
presented her (determine if a given number is prime). Other times new grads
try to treat me as a "bro" or "buddy" instead of potential coworker or
manager.

All together strange, although these behaviors make it easier to determine a
person's team fit in the organization.

~~~
ScottWhigham
Yes, I have the same experiences with recent grads and even people moving from
first job to second. Their casualness, lackadaisical attitude, and general "go
with the flow, man" attitude towards the job and the employee hierarchy just
makes it very easy to say, "Next!" I've hired enough of those casual employees
in years past to learn that it's not worth it to do it again. Can they be good
employees? Absolutely - they are all smart, capable, and have the ability to
perform. However, what I've found is that they consistently either try to use
humor to downplay whatever problem is found (thus trying to diminish the
problem, not their behavior), or they just nod, say "Yes, sir. Won't happen
again.", and keep on doing the same things. That sort of attitude works fine
in many large companies all over the world but, in a small company, it's a lot
harder to get away with. I don't have time to train you on how to be a human -
that's what your 16+ years of school was for.

------
ScottWhigham
I imagine Paul Davidson, author, to be a frustrated father to 1-3 young
20-somethings who are not able to get a job right now, and Paul felt that he
had the perfect angle for a fresh story... Nothing like writing about your own
life experiences!

~~~
niggler
I wonder if our perspective on the job market is tinted by the fact that (I
suspect) the overwhelming majority of graduates on HN are alumni of Ivy League
or other top schools.

~~~
ScottWhigham
I think that, 4-5 years ago, perhaps a large percentage of people would have
fit that bill but even then it was not likely to be anywhere close to a
majority. Today though this is sort of the sophisticated man's Reddit and thus
your suspicion is probably off by an order of magnitude.

~~~
niggler
I think the voting at <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5628769> has
slowed down now and we can safely conclude that it is still a majority (albeit
not as strong as it was in the first few years of HN)

~~~
ScottWhigham
A bit higher percentage than I expected but such polls are often dependent
upon participation of those who log in during the poll's time frame. Still
though, far below a majority (as I write this) - the "Top 20" voting is 24.6%
as of 5:30AM after 681 votes.

------
benjamincburns
tl;dr: Some people do weird things in interviews. Some people are aged 18 to
34 years. This article examines the intersection of these groups, cherry
picking a few examples to suggest it's somehow endemic.

I'd expect this from BuzzFeed, not CNBC...

~~~
khuey
Clearly you aren't familiar the quality of the stuff CNBC publishes then.

------
droz
What a load of garbage. Nothing like cherry picking a few underprepared
individuals to generalize millions of their cohorts.

~~~
fnordfnordfnord
"The interview is still a traditional environment." --Jaime Fall, vice
president of the HR Policy Association. As quoted in the article.

Something about his use of the word traditional sets me off. Oh well, they
made a "jobipedia," whatever that is. If it helps graduates get past the often
capricious nature of HR drones then I won't complain.

------
boos3y
"The interview is still a traditional environment." is the line that irked me,
and it only applies if you are trying to work for a traditional company

~~~
nperez
Agreed. Another line that irked me: "They don't realize (the interview) is a
sales event."

I don't think it is. You're interviewing me and I'm interviewing you. You're
potentially getting my time and my soul. That's not just for sale - we need to
see whether it's a good fit. If we can't even move past your desire to see me
put on an act in the interview room, maybe it's not a good fit.

However, things like answering cell phones are valid concerns. That's
blatantly rude.

~~~
fnordfnordfnord
>things like answering cell phones are valid concerns. That's blatantly rude.

Yeah, but not unique to millenials.

------
gte910h
They didn't have high school jobs with any amount the frequency of the people
before them. There weren't jobs to have as the adults had them all.

------
nawitus
If texting during interviews doesn't affect future job performance, then
interviewers shouldn't disqualify applicants on that basis. The same goes for
dressing wrong and so forth. Of course, in the typical scenario there's a
large stack of decent applications, so the employer has the freedom to make
these dealbreakers and still employ well-performing people.

~~~
polemic
If you're unable to give someone your full attention for such an important
occasion, why on earth would an interviewer expect you to perform well at any
task. Ridiculous.

~~~
nawitus
The problem with recruiting and the interview process is that very little hard
data on _anything_. People just guesstimate everything. If we assume that
young people are about as good as old people (when they were as young and
experienced), then the most plausible expalantion is that there has simply
been a change on social convention.

Some young people apparently have learned the social etiquette that it can be
okay to text during discourse without it being rude. Social etiquette evolves
and there's a clash of values. If the interviewer was as young as the
interviewee, maybe there wouldn't be any problems with the texting.

------
flootch
_Human resource professionals say they've seen recent college grads text or
take calls in interviews, dress inappropriately, use slang or overly casual
language, and exhibit other oddball behavior._

If only we could convince the human resource professionals that earth is
doomed and there was an effort underway to recolonize another planet.

------
hosh
Let's examine this.

Suppose in ten, twenty years from now, all us old fogies are retired or dead.

Who are left? The Millennials.

Imagine you're a Millennial hiring manager. You're interviewing someone. The
interviewee texts in the middle of that. Would you feel offended? Maybe.

Or maybe you are also texting your colleagues and HR during the interview.[1]

This is assuming that something like Google Glasses is not more ubiquitous.
That is to say, Buckminster Fuller's notion of ephemeralization (tech gets
smaller and smaller until it becomes invisible and everywhere). That is, non-
localized communication technologies becomes invisible and everywhere.

This is also assuming that our current hiring practices are still relavent.

There's an excellent Wired magazine articles about the kids born after 1993:
<http://www.wired.com/magazine/2013/04/genwired/>

Something to think about if you're looking to stay relavent in tech.

[1] Caveat: I set aside time daily for mindfulness meditation. For me, texting
during the interview isn't so much as rude or inappropriate as much as you're
scattering your attention to multiple places, so you are not as effective. On
the other hand, if the people you are texting are _helping_ you with the
interview, then more attention is on the interview than any one single person
can muster.

~~~
cpursley
Good points, Hosh.

From that wired article "But none before has felt as free to call bullshit on
conventional wisdom" Bingo - I had a conversation the other day with someone
explaining an interaction I had with a 'non-connected' neighbor and how that
neighbor only knows what they've learned from those people immediately around
them and what TV tells them. And that there is a divide between them and those
who are connected. All I can think when talking to them is 'bullshit' since
the facts are readily available.*

* I suspect this is a good thing but I also think there will be a partial boomerang with those who have access to 'all the collective knowledge of the world' looking for true 'wisdom of the elders' for lack of a better way to state it. Especially those looking to cut through the noise and all the fucking notifications.

~~~
hosh
Yeah, the internet isn't the end-all, be-all. We're trading one mode for
another, and at least for the moment, people who are connected have some
material advantages.

Probably the big thing is learning how to be with just you yourself. To be
fair, this wasn't any more popular in the pre-Internet days.

------
systematical
Awesome for me.

------
Dewie
The younger generation is coddled and entitled; surely this is the End of
Times (again).

------
pasquinelli
i knew better than to read the comments on that article. i knew better, and i
did it anyway.

