I would appreciate it if companies finally acknowledged that interviewing is a two-way street.
I have cancelled way more interviews due to red flags happily waved by companies than companies have rejected me because I failed one of the 8 algorithms questions.
https://aitorvs.github.io/post/most_common_interviewer_mista...
Let me cherry-pick an example: You mention that you don't read a candidate's CV before your one interaction with them (the technical interview). As you say, this is a debatable choice (I find it somewhat acceptable).
At that point, has anyone else at your company read the candidate's CV and cover letter? Sounds stupid, but you would not believe how many people ask about specific topics ("So have you worked with a relational database before?") not in order to ask deeper questions about knowledge or experience, but just in order to tick off checkboxes on their HR form. (This is not made up, this has actually happened to me.)
This bigger issue of a company never asking themselves "How do we as a company show that we actually give a shit about each candidate, and are not just looking for a butt in an office chair" is where in my experience, lots of companies are still completely failing at self-reflection.
My understanding is that this situation happens as a test to see that you were the one that wrote your resume.
Thanks for the insight!
In that context, I think it's a great question:
> given a list of numbers, return two numbers such that one times the other results in 220
It's highly plausible that at some point in the candidate's career, a nontechnical coworker or manager will use nontechnical language to ask them to do something technical, and they'll need to ask for better specification.
A candidate who smart-assedly ignores the input list and returns the numbers 10 and 22 is demonstrating that they assume the asker is an idiot not even worth the time to ask clarifying questions. The candidate has messed up priors: what is the chance that the only piece of information provided in the question is utterly irrelevant? The candidate is also prone to unilaterally making assumptions that reduce their workload, possibly while smugly patting themselves on the back for Kobayashi-Maruing their way past the idiotic interview question. That's bad.
A candidate who has a modicum of social intelligence would reasonably assume that the asker expects them to limit their consideration to the given list (otherwise what's the goddamn point?). Even then, there are ambiguities, which the article rightfully points out you should ask about.
If I was given that question it would be a red flag.
1) it’s a stupid algorithm question similar to what I saw in high school, 2) it’s poorly worded and nonsensical.
Depending on what I know about the company I may or may not give them the benefit of the doubt. In most cases it’s safer to assume the interviewer (and by extension the team) is just not competent.
It stands to reason that if you rejected this question in an interview with the complaint that it was "poorly worded and nonsensical" (I put it to you that it's a perfectly meaningful question), instead of taking the constructive route by asking clarifying questions, this would probably count as a red flag to the employer about you. So again, the question would effectively inform both parties in this case that they are not mutually compatible.
you wanting the company to acknowledge that its a two-way street is evidence that it's not. It's very rare.
> I have cancelled way more interviews due to red flags happily waved by companies than companies have rejected me
You can boycott a business too if you don't like it, but that doesn't make it a two-way street. You have very little leverage over the business.
Yes I can? I can walk away from the interviewing process. They have invested in recruiting just as much if not more than I have in interview prep.
Their employees are paid just the same for technical interviews than their normal work.
The exception being candidates skilled at a rare niche, then it's stacked in your favor.
Your mileage might greatly vary.
I've only encountered companies that struggle to hire good people (so they end up not hiring many people at all, not enough to keep up with growth) and companies that struggle to hire good people (so they end up hiring everyone that passes Fizzbuzz and can't keep up their quality).
But then this is an insular market (Switzerland) where there are tens of thousands of unfilled positions.
To me parent’s point is that any company acting as if you’d unconditionally accept their offer if they made one is a recipe for failure.
I think I confused "two-way street" to mean an equal-sided transaction.
If you are interviewing to have an alternative to another offer, you might effectively dictate the process (time spent, deadlines etc.) if they want to interview you bad enough. And I’ve been on the receiving end as the recruiting company’s interviewer, pitching the job to get a favorable answer.
Same if you don’t have any pressure to leave your current job.
Sure big companies sometimes won’t have any leeway to deal with these candidates, that’s also why they get avoided by people who have the choice, and everyone’s happy.