Hacker News Reader

Comment by edw519 | Hacker News Reader

Of all the things I've ever tried in order to do well in interviews, one of them trumps all of the others:

I am interviewing them.

That's it. It's that simple. The sooner we understand that every interview is a 2 way interview and that we are interviewing them just as much as they are interviewing us, the sooner we can adopt the right mental attitude the make the rest of the bullshit details melt away.

I even take it a step further: it's much more important the I make the right choice than they do. I am giving them my time, which I can never get back. They are giving me their money, which they have plenty of and can always get more.

Interview them. Be nice. Have a nice 2 way dialogue. And never forget: it's your party, not theirs.

If it doesn't lead anywhere, no problem. There are plenty more of them, but only one of you.

Aside: More thoughts in Chapter 3 here: http://static.v25media.com/edw519_mod.html

View on HN

Once you get past pencil pushing jobs and jobs that don't require more than a week of training, interviews need to stop becoming interviews and need to start being conversation. It needs to stop being, "will they give me a job!?" and transition to, "do we want to work together?"

This

But the hubris of employers seems to be ever increasing.

I am interviewing them.

I can't tell you how many times I've interviewed someone and they never asked me a single question. Even if they seemed good, I always put them into the reject pile. Not a single question? Wow.

I don't ask questions if I lose interest during the interview process.

I encourage our candidates to ask questions and while I won't explicitly hold it against them (I find many people are too afraid of the power dynamic) if they don't it certainly helps them if they have a rich conversation instead of just blankly answering my own questions.

As an interviewee I try to ask any questions which come up throughout the process, I don't wait for them to ask me. This sometimes annoys interviewers, but that's their problem.

However, what I vehemently disagree with is that someone needs to have a clever answer to "do you have any questions for us?". This is usually thrown in the last few minutes of an interview and frankly it calls for a canned question which means by the 10th person I've talked to I'm tired of hearing the answer(s).

However, what I vehemently disagree with is that someone needs to have a clever answer to "do you have any questions for us?"

I'm not looking for clever, I'm looking for interest.

> I'm not looking for clever, I'm looking for interest.

Not saying this is true of course, but have you considered that some of those times might be that you as the interviewer were unable to pique their interest in what you do? It is a two way street, after all.

Right, but I'm showing interest by participating in the convo in general. What I mean are the cliche questions which are purely designed for me to show that I've reseaeched your company except that I already know the answer as I've researched your company.

Then, in your case, he is absolutely correct in considering that a negative signal.

That's true, but I meant that if a lot of your interviews seem to go poorly you should keep an open mind about things and consider your process as well as the candidates you're choosing to interview.

Maybe by then, they've already put you in their reject pile?

Do you give them conversational priority during the interview, or do you dominate the entire interaction and then make their opportunity to finally speak freely just another one of your interview questions?

If so, what you're really asking is this: "Here's some rope. Would you like to hang yourself with it?"

I like to ask my questions as they become topically relevant, during the interview. If I can't ask anything until the end, that is a gigantic red flag for me.

If you expect my question to just be an answer to your "do you have any questions?" question, then screw you, buddy. You're getting my canned response: "How does your company determine the value of a <position title>?"

And then, no matter what you say, I'll make a little frown and say, "hmmm".

I feel like I'm making this comment over and over on HN, but this is a great approach only when the going is good. But one needs to be flexible and change their mental attitude appropriately when times are not so good. Sometimes you just need a job, and in those cases the interviewer and interviewee role is quite clear.

I might be the only one who actually remembers 2001-4, and trust me, during that time if you walked in with the "I'm actually interviewing YOU!" attitude, you were in for a surprise.

Couldn't agree more. My memories of that period are razor-sharp- you're not the only old fogie around here who remembers the aftermath of the last bubble...

Not only do I clearly remember 2001-4, but I also clearly remember other times that were much worse: 1982-3, 1987-8, and 1991-2 (which was horrible).

I have been using my strategy of "I'm interviewing you." since 1979 and nothing has ever worked as well, good times or bad.

I feel like I'm making this comment over and over on HN, but why is it that when I share my experience of what has worked really well for me, someone tells me I'm wrong.

why is it that when I share my experience of what has worked really well for me, someone tells me I'm wrong.

Because most folks only comment when they disagree.

And most folks on HN are disagreeable.

>I even take it a step further: it's much more important the I make the right choice than they do. I am giving them my time, which I can never get back. They are giving me their money, which they have plenty of and can always get more.

The other employees at the company are people too, and their time is just as valuable as yours at a personal level, even if The Company in the abstract sense only sees it as a negligible increase in the payroll.

It's important that both parties make a good choice.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com