

Spooking potential hires - guiseppecalzone
http://josephwalla.com/spooking-potential-hires

======
georgemcbay
As a 40-year old who has been in the industry long enough to have a very
healthy set of references to back me up, I conversely find it annoying that my
time is wasted by people who want to subject me to half a dozen levels of
interviews where I'm mostly doing silly shit like reversing a string in place
or doing their stupid variation of a Fermi question.

Yes, interview me for fit (on both sides), but subjecting me to an endless
barrage of technical interviews where you ask me questions I've heard dozens
of times before is much more likely to get me to drop out of the process than
subjecting me to not enough is. The article says they skipped "one of the
final interviews" suggesting there were multiple already... And within one
interview I can assess the skill level of the people interviewing me without
having to attempt to intuit it based on how many of the "Microsoft questions"
from the 80s they found on Google to ask potential candidates.

Are you sure the candidate was "spooked" because you didn't interview him or
her that one final time? The article doesn't do a good job of explaining if
that is speculation or verified feedback from the candidate. There are a
billion and one reasons why someone might give you a pass.

~~~
guiseppecalzone
This can definitely go to far, especially if the company’s process itself
involves too many steps. I don’t think that’s the case with us, which has been
an advantage when competing against companies that take weeks to decide. For
an engineer, assuming they’re available for interviews, we can make an offer
in just a few days after they apply.

Sorry for not clarifying about verification versus speculation. I talked to
the candidate on the phone at the end of the process. The candidate felt like
we had moved too quickly and had remaining questions. The last interview would
have answered those questions, but no doubt, that’s partially speculative.

~~~
collyw
I got hacked off with a company recently. They send an email to the local
Python meetup group with what they were looking for. I replied, highlighting
experience in 13 of their 15 criteria.

"Great now, we would really like to see an example of your code".

"Well all my stuff at work is in house, and contains some sensitive
information. I have started a small side project recently, but you will have
to understand that it is not finished. Have you got a bitbucket account?"

"Great, now we would like you do dedicate a bit of time to set up a simple
flask API...."

"I have sent you an example for real work I have done, I don't think it is
really necessary for me to set up a project using two technologies I am not
familar with..."

The guy kept of framing it as if I was causing a problem. I said I would do it
for the local freelance rate, but that seemed to go unnoticed as I was asked
for a solution to _my_ reluctance to do the test.

------
languagehacker
My guess is that this wasn't the only thing that spooked the candidate. To be
brutally honest, anyone talented enough to merit an expedited decision like
that would probably be awfully bored working at a company in the online faxing
space. More importantly, they probably already had a competitive offer from a
company in a more interesting space.

The only thing I can think of that would be more boring than working at an
online fax company would be working at one with a series of meticulous HR
processes.

~~~
greenyoda
_" The only thing I can think of that would be more boring than working at an
online fax company..."_

There are lots of companies in "boring" businesses that could provide
interesting technical challenges and pleasant working environments for
developers. Why would an online fax company be any more boring than an
apartment rental company (Airbnb) or a taxi service (Uber)? I'd guess that
those two companies would have no difficulty attracting good developers.

------
Mithaldu
I'm sceptical. How do they know they spooked him? There are no details lost on
that. Did they just jump at him with a number? Or did they clarify they
thought he was a great candidate, making them willing to skip some steps?

All good companies i've ever worked at had a fairly fast hiring process as
they knew what they wanted and did research on their own on me, while the ones
that stuck to the numbers ended up being full of incompetent or outright
inhuman people.

------
lolwutf
AMA Request: Potential hire recently spooked out of a job interview by
HelloFax

------
wildpeaks
The conclusion bugs me because it takes one data point to deduce a general
rule.

Yes in that specific case, perhaps the candidate was spooked by the speed of
the offer, but next time might be the opposite: another candidate will get
tired of the lengthy process until you get to the point and will drop out in
favor of a company looking for more than ticking all boxes, especially as it
might be a red flag that the environment isn't flexible enough to adapt.

So don't feel bad for following your guts and making an offer: if he really
had been the perfect fit, he would have felt the same way.

~~~
sportanova
I agree, don't be afraid to break with the 'process' and go with what seems to
make sense. If once person doesn't join, it's not an indictment of your
breaking the 'process'.

------
stephenbez
I've felt like the candidate in the story before.

For one company I interviewed with, the questions were all straight-forward. I
finished 30 minutes early and they had no more questions to ask me.

If the interview process can't differentiate from someone who is merely ok and
someone who is amazing then the company will be likely filled with people who
are only merely ok. That isn't a company I want to work for.

Compare that to a place like Google where if you claim you are an expert at a
language, they will have the language creator interview you.

------
pbreit
So the guy made a bad(?) decision based on incomplete information (/jumping to
conclusions) or there's more going on in this story?

~~~
sportanova
Definitely either more to the story, or he just wasn't impressed with the
company / didn't see himself working there.

------
pdenya
Seems like most companies disagree with this, great people get preferential
hiring treatment and get to skip interviews. The story of Zuckerberg taking
candidates on hikes is a good example.

I wonder if it would be as effective to just tell them what you're letting
them skip and why.

