gregbo (gregbo) wrote,
gregbo
gregbo

  • Mood:
More interview commentary, courtesy of Joel on Software. The author will sometimes ask a question, get a correct answer, then argue with the candidate that the answer is wrong. If the candidate gives in, the candidate isn't hired. This is presumably to determine if the candidate is passionate.

Again, I don't see what is learned from this that can't be learned some other way. Furthermore, it seems like a waste of time. The time could be used to ask some other question, to allow the candidate to ask questions, to walk around the office (a break from the interview can release tension), to return to a past question the candidate might have had trouble with, and many other things.

BTW, Seth Godin has posted a very controversial entry in his blog about how interviews are a waste of time. Some of his suggestions, such as hiring someone for a weekend, aren't practical for all jobs (e.g. if the candidate is from out of town, or working for a competitor). But he does make some good points that in general, you don't know how well things will work out with your candidate until the candidate becomes an employee.

Note for usenet fans: Chuq von Rospach, one of the major contributors to usenet source code and newsgroup organization back in the day, responded in his own blog.
Subscribe
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 1 comment