
Ask HN: Is there any point of asking about hobbies in interviews? - avinassh
I am not sure how common it is in Silicon Valley, but in India following questions are very common and I really find it difficult to understand why interviewer is asking them and what exactly he expects to understand from me:<p>1. What are your hobbies? (this usually means non-tech hobbies if you have)<p>2. What are your strengths&#x2F;weaknesses?<p>3. Where do you see yourself after 5 years? 10 years?<p>So...why? I want to understand interviewers point of view.
======
tabeth
TLDR: Don't ask for irrelevant information. It helps you make a biased
decision.

Asking about hobbies needlessly introduces bias into your interview process.
The hobby(ies) of candidates is completely irrelevant. One may respond saying
"oh, but we just want to make small talk," but it's that small talk that is
the precursor to bias to begin with. All things being equal, you would prefer
someone more similar to you.

> Our findings indicate that people are more willing to give to, share an
> office with, commute with, and work on a critical project critical to their
> advancement with individuals who are similar to them selves (Self) along a
> particular identity dimension than with individuals who are dis similar
> (Other) [1]

[1] [http://conf.som.yale.edu/obsummer07/PaperBen-
NerKramer.pdf](http://conf.som.yale.edu/obsummer07/PaperBen-NerKramer.pdf)

~~~
fratlas
I definitely work more efficiently with people I can connect with. I think the
bias is good.

~~~
switch007
Does it help produce a better product for the customer and/or more $?

~~~
fratlas
Absolutely. Well functioning team = more efficient = lower costs for the
client.

------
PaulHoule
I think the last two are asked frequently in the US.

(2) is poorly regarded as a question. Somebody who is good at the job might
choke on the question, but somebody who is good at interviewing has a
rehearsed answer.

(3) falls to the same attack as (2) I have won jobs based on my answer to (3),
but I think for most people things will turn out differently than they expect
5 to 10 years from now.

(1) is the question I like the most of the bunch. I think the goal there is to
make the interviewee more comfortable; getting people to talk about something
they like also gets a very good show out of most people. If a person flubs (1)
I think it is much more severe than (2) or (3)

~~~
coreyp_1
The problem is that (1) is, to me, invasive. What if their "hobby" is to work
for a political interest? What if it is religious in nature? What if it is
sexual/adult in nature? What if they have no hobbies because they take care of
a dependent relative?

In these situations, the interviewer has backed the interviewee into a corner.
They must either lie, evade the question, or expose their private life to a
complete stranger. In not a single situation is this a good thing.

~~~
partisan
Agreed. Asking this type of question exposes one to liability. What if you
don't hire them? What if they feel it was because of something they mentioned
in answering the question?

Personally, I look for someone who can get the job done well. I optimize my
interview process for that purpose. Some people are looking to hire someone
who will also be fun to hang out with so they optimize for that.

~~~
paulcole
As far as the United States goes, very few hobbies are going to be protected
classes.

What are they going to say, "Oh, in my spare time I enjoy being old, blind,
and Jewish."

~~~
coreyp_1
What if their answer is: "Oh, well I go out every afternoon doing door-to-door
proselytizing for the Jehovah's Witnesses." "I go straight home because my
wife is expecting our 5th child." "I spend most of my time studying for the
Citizenship test." "I spend my time at the VFW." "I used to do X, but since I
got hurt..." "I sing in the choir at my church." "I make YouTube videos to
support LGBT causes."

For the vast majority of people, things that are a "protected class" are so
much a part of their identity that it is even incorporated into their hobbies.

The crux of the matter is, though: It's none of their business! (quite
literally)

------
laurentl
My point of view, as a technical manager (i.e. I've both asked and been asked
these questions).

1) is, for me, a way to know a bit more about the person and see how they talk
about something they're interested in. This can actually be a good question if
you're interviewing an introverted, technical person who doesn't give much
emotion away when talking about his/her job experience. I honestly don't
really care if they answer "reading", "tango classes", or "building a nuclear
power plant in my garage" \- I want to hear them talk as a person, not as a
candidate, and get the conversation flowing ("which kinds of books ?", "how
did you get into tango?", "where do you get the enriched uranium?"). And maybe
you find that you have a common hobby ("I love Terry Pratchett too!"), and
that does introduce bias - but as other said, I think it's a good bias.

2) and 3) are typical HR questions. They're meant to understand your
personality and your motivations. I'm not a great fan of them (see next point)
but I have an answer ready for them because I know they'll be asked - usually,
I answer these questions by explaining what motivates me.

Instead of asking 2) and/or 3), I usually ask "what motivates you? what do you
like or don't like in a job?". If the candidate has trouble answering, I try
to be more specific: "what did you like about your last project (position,
whatever)? what made you glad to come in the morning, or what did you try to
avoid?" Any answer is valid, from "I liked the challenge of the project", "I
got on well with the team", "it was a 5 minute walk from my house" to "too
much office politics" or "the open space was too noisy". I just want to
understand what the candidate likes and dislikes so that I can see if they're
a good fit with the job, the environment and the team.

------
paulcole
I'd ask about hobbies because I want to:

A) See that the person has a life outside of work. Where I work, we don't EVER
do more than 40 hours a week. If someone wants to work constantly, they're
probably not a great fit.

B) See that they can communicate clearly about something they're excited
about.

C) That they choose a hobby that's appropriate to talk about in a job
interview. There are definitely wrong answers to this question that would get
an immediate NO from me.

~~~
coreyp_1
A) Everybody has life outside of work. It's kind of the definition of "life",
in that it doesn't stop until they die.

B) They should be able to do this about the job itself. There is no need to
pry into their personal life.

C) What if they say, "none of my hobbies are appropriate to discuss in a job
interview"? What would your response be? It doesn't mean that it's illegal or
immoral, but it has that connotation. Arguably, it might be beneficial to ask
if they have any hobbies that relate to the job for which they are being
interviewed for (and that does not bother me), but to simply ask about any
hobby that the applicant may choose to pursue is, in a word, nosy.

~~~
paulcole
> What if they say, "none of my hobbies are appropriate to discuss in a job
> interview"?

Perhaps the biggest red flag of all. Has this person not learned how to answer
a question tactfully? Do they not understand the purpose of a job interview?

------
dominotw
>1\. What are your hobbies?

This a common indian ice breaker type of question since we don't talk about
weather( Indian weather is predictable as hell) .

------
pmoriarty
I don't go out of my way to ask about hobbies, but if they do somehow come up
during the interview and you find you or one of your teammates have something
in common with the candidate, that could be a positive sign. The more
compatible the team is, the better.

------
bsvalley
Sure, that's what seperates robots from human beings - hobbies, personal
goals, etc.

