Interesting thoughts. In a perfect world, we could totally do this, but there's another factor: as interviewers, we need to weed out massive egos, unqualified individuals, and whatnot. While many of your points are good, I've learned the hard way NOT to do some of the nice-sounding things you describe, as they've led to me to make some disastrous hiring choices.
1) I do believe in giving someone a chance to do coding before the interview (so I can see them at their best), and I also like asking them how they code. However, I also need to watch them doing it. YES, it's under pressure, and YES we factor in their nerves, but it does tell us a lot about how they handle some scenarios.
The point of whiteboarding isn't actually to see if they know certain algorithms and data structures (although it is useful to see if they are capable of actually coding at all). When the nerves kick in, an individual's deepest habits and assumptions rise to the surface, so I get a VERY good picture of their natural inclinations as a coder. In over three years of hiring, the notes I've compiled from watching people coding in interviews have been spot-on as I see their work at the company.
2) I'm never mean, but I'm also not warm and friendly. Actually, you'll be hard pressed to get any emotion out of me at all. Why? Most humans need emotional feedback to keep a scripted act going, and I want to cut past the script and talk to the real person. I've also learned that if someone displays unwavering confidence (and usually bravado) in that sort of scenario, they invariably have an ego the size of Brazil.
Long story short, interviews are nerve-wracking for a reason. We're not there to make friends, we're there to find out what sort of person you actually are, versus the type of person you're trying to make us believe you are.
There IS an upside to all of this: every person I've ever hired has said that the thrill of getting the job more than made up for the interview experience.
"we're there to find out what sort of person you actually are, versus the type of person you're trying to make us believe you are."
you cannot, and should not, assume that you can figure out a person during a job interview. Most importantly, displaying a cold and emotionless persona during said interview is more likely to illicit a defensive response, rather than an authentic one.
Defensiveness is generally detectable, and it takes different forms. I've never gotten an authentic response from being warm-and-friendly during an interview, but I HAVE had numerous people try to snow me (and a few succeed back then). That's why I switched.
Flat-affect interviews don't necessarily let you get the whole picture of the real person, no, but you at least create an environment where acting is MUCH harder. I've watched people flip between their rehearsed personas like a television in those scenarios, as they try to get some response out of me. But the ones who are just being themselves are constant (and a bit nervous) through the whole thing. They're the ones I hire - and they're also the ONLY ones who have ever done excellent work and stayed on.
All the same, we may have to agree to disagree on this. I'm telling you what I've experienced to be true, without exception (in either direction), in the whole of my experience as an interviewer. I've got a few years of proven mileage behind my points. Maybe you have the same, I don't know.
I'm on the fence between you (Jason) and Tim's arguments about being friendly versus emotionless.
As a recent interviewee, meetings with cold, flat-affect interviewers were a struggle because it felt like I was talking to a wall. I wanted a response to see if they were liking who I was, and vice versa -- after all, we might spend a lot of time together. The silent, lack-of-intent responses made me feel like I was being tested as opposed to being a person who they could work with.
Of course, I can definitely see your argument about people quickly going through rehearsed personas. Being dishonest to get a job is certainly a trait I would not want to work with. Consistency definitely helps, and I agree that it's probably an indicator of authenticity.
To quote you, the interview is there to find out what kind of person a candidate is. That's the same for the candidate, too, though. My perspective is that an interview is a two way street, and both parties are there to learn about each other.
Actually, that's exactly the point of the cold affect. You want to see if I'm liking who you are, but what is the natural response if it's clear I'm not? Typically, one changes how they present themselves at that point until they get a response, but if there's no response in any case, it's easier just to drop the act and be yourself for better or worse. You see? Similarly, if you are acting in any capacity (and maybe we all do a little bit) and you get positive feedback, you'll continue to act. It's just psychology at play.
What I didn't mention (and maybe should have) is that, towards the end of the interview, I have the candidate walk away for a few minutes while I discuss the verdict with my other interviewers. We decide if we need to ask any more questions, and what the answers should be, and then we call the candidate back. Once we decide we want to hire the person, we drop the cold affect and give them a chance to ask us whatever they like before announcing (then) that they're hired.
Thanks for mentioning the end process. I agree that positive feedback for someone who is acting isn't what you want as an interviewer. I'm more of the opinion that people generally go to an interview as themselves, with some extra "I'm meeting my potential boss" friendliness. My experience has been that cold affect makes me tone that friendliness down (my "act"), but also does make me a feel a bit defensive in the interview. There wasn't an environment where I didn't feel comfortable being myself, but it doesn't sound like that's what you're doing.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
Interesting thoughts. In a perfect world, we could totally do this, but there's another factor: as interviewers, we need to weed out massive egos, unqualified individuals, and whatnot. While many of your points are good, I've learned the hard way NOT to do some of the nice-sounding things you describe, as they've led to me to make some disastrous hiring choices.
1) I do believe in giving someone a chance to do coding before the interview (so I can see them at their best), and I also like asking them how they code. However, I also need to watch them doing it. YES, it's under pressure, and YES we factor in their nerves, but it does tell us a lot about how they handle some scenarios.
The point of whiteboarding isn't actually to see if they know certain algorithms and data structures (although it is useful to see if they are capable of actually coding at all). When the nerves kick in, an individual's deepest habits and assumptions rise to the surface, so I get a VERY good picture of their natural inclinations as a coder. In over three years of hiring, the notes I've compiled from watching people coding in interviews have been spot-on as I see their work at the company.
2) I'm never mean, but I'm also not warm and friendly. Actually, you'll be hard pressed to get any emotion out of me at all. Why? Most humans need emotional feedback to keep a scripted act going, and I want to cut past the script and talk to the real person. I've also learned that if someone displays unwavering confidence (and usually bravado) in that sort of scenario, they invariably have an ego the size of Brazil.
Long story short, interviews are nerve-wracking for a reason. We're not there to make friends, we're there to find out what sort of person you actually are, versus the type of person you're trying to make us believe you are.
There IS an upside to all of this: every person I've ever hired has said that the thrill of getting the job more than made up for the interview experience.
"we're there to find out what sort of person you actually are, versus the type of person you're trying to make us believe you are."
Defensiveness is generally detectable, and it takes different forms. I've never gotten an authentic response from being warm-and-friendly during an interview, but I HAVE had numerous people try to snow me (and a few succeed back then). That's why I switched.
Flat-affect interviews don't necessarily let you get the whole picture of the real person, no, but you at least create an environment where acting is MUCH harder. I've watched people flip between their rehearsed personas like a television in those scenarios, as they try to get some response out of me. But the ones who are just being themselves are constant (and a bit nervous) through the whole thing. They're the ones I hire - and they're also the ONLY ones who have ever done excellent work and stayed on.
All the same, we may have to agree to disagree on this. I'm telling you what I've experienced to be true, without exception (in either direction), in the whole of my experience as an interviewer. I've got a few years of proven mileage behind my points. Maybe you have the same, I don't know.
I'm on the fence between you (Jason) and Tim's arguments about being friendly versus emotionless.
As a recent interviewee, meetings with cold, flat-affect interviewers were a struggle because it felt like I was talking to a wall. I wanted a response to see if they were liking who I was, and vice versa -- after all, we might spend a lot of time together. The silent, lack-of-intent responses made me feel like I was being tested as opposed to being a person who they could work with.
Of course, I can definitely see your argument about people quickly going through rehearsed personas. Being dishonest to get a job is certainly a trait I would not want to work with. Consistency definitely helps, and I agree that it's probably an indicator of authenticity.
To quote you, the interview is there to find out what kind of person a candidate is. That's the same for the candidate, too, though. My perspective is that an interview is a two way street, and both parties are there to learn about each other.
Actually, that's exactly the point of the cold affect. You want to see if I'm liking who you are, but what is the natural response if it's clear I'm not? Typically, one changes how they present themselves at that point until they get a response, but if there's no response in any case, it's easier just to drop the act and be yourself for better or worse. You see? Similarly, if you are acting in any capacity (and maybe we all do a little bit) and you get positive feedback, you'll continue to act. It's just psychology at play.
What I didn't mention (and maybe should have) is that, towards the end of the interview, I have the candidate walk away for a few minutes while I discuss the verdict with my other interviewers. We decide if we need to ask any more questions, and what the answers should be, and then we call the candidate back. Once we decide we want to hire the person, we drop the cold affect and give them a chance to ask us whatever they like before announcing (then) that they're hired.
Thanks for mentioning the end process. I agree that positive feedback for someone who is acting isn't what you want as an interviewer. I'm more of the opinion that people generally go to an interview as themselves, with some extra "I'm meeting my potential boss" friendliness. My experience has been that cold affect makes me tone that friendliness down (my "act"), but also does make me a feel a bit defensive in the interview. There wasn't an environment where I didn't feel comfortable being myself, but it doesn't sound like that's what you're doing.