Comment by somberi | Hacker News Reader

Comment by somberi | Hacker News Reader

Been on the hiring side for more than a decade. In addition to other advice in this thread, I would like to add -

I treat the interview as my chance to help the candidate pass the interview. This bent of thought may seem subtle, but makes all the difference in meeting the candidate in their terrain, and seeing the world from their point of view. Consequently, the case studies given explicitly state that if the candidate finds something else that intrigues them, I am happy to take that as a case study instead - gives them something to flaunt and for me to learn about.

Some candidates are shy to open up, or just not comfortable conversing with strangers, or misread the power asymmetry in the interview and get anxious - I spend a fair bit of time just conversing human to human.

For the really uncommunicative candidates, I make a slight of what they built (fake slight) and this gets the conversation going like a star. The good candidates exhibit a great amount of "Builder's Pride" and defend what they built. They really good ones admit to the possibility that there were other better ways to have built, or explain to me the constraints under which they made the choices they did.

> I treat the interview as my chance to help the candidate pass the interview

Yes! This is exactly how I treat interviews as well (as the interviewer) and would make a good addition to this already solid article. It really opens candidates up when you treat them like you're in an actual scenario at work. Let them ask for help, google for ideas, ask about different solutions, and ask them what they think of your own solutions. How they deal with these things are the real markers of what they'll be like to work with, not how quickly they can remember how to reverse an array while you sit there staring at them.

> They really good ones admit to the possibility that there were other better ways to have built, or explain to me the constraints under which they made the choices they did.

Does anyone just clam up because you are making slights about something where you don't know the constraints and make inferences about you from that? Most of us have dealt with utterly terrible, opinionated, under-skilled, supercilious and rude interviewers. How do you avoid coming off at least a little bit like that? Generally speaking there's zero point picking fights with an interviewer no matter how wrong they are.

Yes, what you said exactly happens, but not often enough to negate the value of opening up the otherwise clammed up candidate.

Hopefully, the first part where the human<>human chat happens, the candidate is able to see that the intent is to have a genuine conversation, albeit with a more senior person (aka older) person on the other side.

Where I differ from you is the zero-payoff framing. There have been cases where the candidate put me in my place, rightfully so, and ended up getting hired.

This is subjective territory, but I actually prefer a candidate that spars. It gives me a chance to explain my position as well as hear his/hers.

Yours looks like a classic "yes but I'm different" response. Maybe you really are different. I couldn't possibly say. Just be aware of it? Or maybe there's a way to have your cake and eat it too? Like put on a stupid hat and say "I'm going to play 'Joe Obnoxious the Arrogant' and be critical, this is not how we talk design around here in general but it cuts us the to the chase about something you know. Stand up to anything you don't like hearing. Back it." Hat on. "Why did you do something so sucky as ..." And just maybe there's like a big smile, but heavy content? Eh just a thought. The way you described it would have me thinking I don't want to be there in the room, let alone working with, beside, for, in charge of, you. But I can't and hear the tone of what you describe so who knows..?

This does not seems like a generous interpretation of what op said. The slight that op mentioned could have been surgical and precise, and just enough to kick off a conversation, and not enough to trample the interviewee.

Well you don't know the interviewee to make any assumption at all. I've given /my/ honest response to the description of it. Framed as a question, while noting some of the shortcomings of that. Then provided a suggestion of how OP might get what they want without causing the problem I suggested might, and OP confirmed actually does, occur.

So yeah I think that's pretty productive and positive as these conversations go. I don't see you adding anything of utility or value to it by suggesting bad faith or lack of generosity that I don't think exists on either side. "Surgical and precise" slights by definition can't be either from a position of ignorance, about the person you're slighting or the context and constraints of the work they've done. But you might get lucky. Even without luck it might not matter, maybe nobody else in the world would tell you to boil your head other than me? And nobody whose opinion or work you'd care about? YMMV.

It sounds like the OPs method not only allows people to shine by diving into what they've built, but it would also filter out people like yourself, who are so unbelievably sensitive that it would be a nightmare to work around all of your triggers.

Possibly so. But it's a hell of an assumption to make and not a very kind one. Maybe you were triggered yourself and so that's not entirely fair.

Clearly people don't like the fact that you're making a very valid point.

This site is almost as bad as Reddit, go with the status quo and polish each others ego or you're downvoted or flagged.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com