If I had to interview somebody, I would do it this way:
1) Clear expectations about the skill, experience, and salary range. Why waste someone's time if they don't match. I hate when companies are not transparent and not able to tell what they expect from a candidate. You can spot them by a very long list of requirements, no salary range or low salary with a requirement of 20+ years.
2) An outline of the interview. You will meet with Person A, B, C. They will cover your skills, experience, and they will give you a test. It will take 3 hours. I commit to the schedule as much as possible. I've been to interviews that dragged out for 5-6 hours, instead of allocated one hour. This is simply disrespectful to a candidate in my opinion.
3) If it is a multi-day interview, the decisions are made each day. Don't make a candidate go through the whole process to reject them at the end because they expect 5k more than you can afford and they've been clear about it from day one.
4) Give honest feedback. If somebody comes to my interview and they don't match what I look for, I owe that person the reason behind my decision. It's not just polite, it's a professional toward my peer.
I politely demand the above points when I got for interviews too, and I judge companies based on how they do interviews too.
I believe there are legal reasons why a lot of companies don't give honest feedback. Employment laws are laced with a myriad of do's and dont's, making it risky to give any kind of feedback. It's not worth the risk of discrimination lawsuit, or harassment, to provide a candidate with valuable feedback.
Though I've heard some companies filter their feedback through HR, legally sanitizing them. I've never met somebody personally that's gotten that though, so it may just be rumours...
Yep. HR has those approved phrases ready to use for older candidates like me, like "while your skills are good, you just aren't a good fit for our company's team dynamics". I understand they have the same or similar phrases ready to use for other protected candidates.
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.
This wasn't my best interview, but it felt like one. dev.to/rommik/it-is-possible-to-co...
If I had to interview somebody, I would do it this way:
1) Clear expectations about the skill, experience, and salary range. Why waste someone's time if they don't match. I hate when companies are not transparent and not able to tell what they expect from a candidate. You can spot them by a very long list of requirements, no salary range or low salary with a requirement of 20+ years.
2) An outline of the interview. You will meet with Person A, B, C. They will cover your skills, experience, and they will give you a test. It will take 3 hours. I commit to the schedule as much as possible. I've been to interviews that dragged out for 5-6 hours, instead of allocated one hour. This is simply disrespectful to a candidate in my opinion.
3) If it is a multi-day interview, the decisions are made each day. Don't make a candidate go through the whole process to reject them at the end because they expect 5k more than you can afford and they've been clear about it from day one.
4) Give honest feedback. If somebody comes to my interview and they don't match what I look for, I owe that person the reason behind my decision. It's not just polite, it's a professional toward my peer.
I politely demand the above points when I got for interviews too, and I judge companies based on how they do interviews too.
I believe there are legal reasons why a lot of companies don't give honest feedback. Employment laws are laced with a myriad of do's and dont's, making it risky to give any kind of feedback. It's not worth the risk of discrimination lawsuit, or harassment, to provide a candidate with valuable feedback.
Though I've heard some companies filter their feedback through HR, legally sanitizing them. I've never met somebody personally that's gotten that though, so it may just be rumours...
Yep. HR has those approved phrases ready to use for older candidates like me, like "while your skills are good, you just aren't a good fit for our company's team dynamics". I understand they have the same or similar phrases ready to use for other protected candidates.