the first time I experienced it I was pretty shaken up.
either that or the person you spoke with is just an asshole.
Senior execs that do this belong a long way from the interview process (and probably a long way from a senior exec role, because if they haven't figured out that interviews are a two-way process and unnecessary rudeness isn't a good first impression to leave they're not really management material)
The earlier interviews were fine. I was fairly green, but I seemed to get the basics of the position, was very eager to learn, and had the recommendation of my (large) department's management up to VP. They asked me technical questions which I did pretty well on. Then the Director comes in and immediately starts blasting my resume, my lack of real-world experience, asked why I was wasting his time and literally questioned whether I was worthy of being on the Help Desk at all.
I was shaken to my core. I spent the next three days questioning my abilities and feeling like I was letting the company down somehow. On the fourth day someone told me that this was his "interview style" and he was doing it to "stress test" interviewees. At that point I was pretty thrilled I didn't get the job and left the company shortly after for an entry-level SysAdmin job. I couldn't believe he would lay into a coworker (even a very subordinate one in a different department) like that without at least telling them why at the end.
I'm still shaken up by that interview to this day. Technical interviews scare the shit out of me.
I tell my "underlings" to breathe (with their diaphragm), to take their time, and to carry their voice.
[1] http://www.amazon.com/Crucial-Conversations-Talking-Stakes-S...
IT is so pervasive now, there is almost always another job.
...and that's in the book! ;-)
edit: I think the key is that there's a dominant technique, regardless of whether you're getting trolled.
Or... at least e-mail the internal candidates afterwards (there were 3 of us, none of us got the job) and let us know why. Or tell our managers and let them tell us. Something besides beating us down and letting us flap in the wind.
Sounds like wannabes trying to imitate Admiral Rickover's interview style for the Navy's nuclear-propulsion program [0]. Forty-plus years on I can still recite my interview with the Kindly Old Gentleman [sic] practically verbatim.
[0] E.g., http://the-military-guide.com/sea-story-the-admiral-rickover...
The word "controversial" is used a lot with respect to Rickover, but that word is so clichéd today that virtually anyone that gets things done can be so labeled. However, Rickover truly seems to deserve that categorization. Beyond the Wikipedia article and "Rickover: Controversy and Genius", are there any other sources you and dctoedt would recommend to learn more about him?
Fanboyism toward Steve Jobs causes me to reflexively cringe because of the extent to which the ends were viewed as justifying the means in his management philosophy. Not to mention something approaching a sadistic streak. It would seem that a similar lens should apply toward Rickover.
Did he call it "extreme negative feedback"?
It has to be the worst way of detecting "how does this person deal with stress?". It's so artificial.
well, they do, but basically only in crappy interview situations.
And is it that Oracle has such marketplace strength that it can get away with holding the deadwood? I had heard that Oracle was a very competitive place.
Also, mathattack's answer: https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=mathattack
I have seen great people fired by terrible managers.
As an interviewer, I appreciate the honesty/brevity, and if the explanation for being fired is reasonable enough, it needn't be a huge red flag.
It was rare that the CEO would reject people, but it happened occasionally, much to the interviewers delight \s. Sometimes he just wanted to 'leave his mark' I guess.
I actually doubt that the 'flabbergasted' response was an act.
I applied in mid-2014 to a software eng position based on encouragement from a recruiter. I went to two onsites with five people in total, each of which passed me to the next round.
They had me come in for a third onsite(!) to meet with CEO James Beriker and some head of engineering. I had admitted to being let go for underperformance to the position I held two jobs ago (was doing fine at my current). I had explained this to each past interviewer who asked. Beriker just seemed to want to have fun with it, asking "well why the heck should I hire someone who's been fired?" He looked at my resume and said, "so, what were you doing between these positions ... oh right, that must have been how long it took you to find a job".
Whenever I asked for clarification on his other questions, he cryptically dismissed it with, "just, whatever you interpret that to mean".
I don't imagine that they're going to get a steady stream of good candidates[1] if they're going to put you through all that and still veto you for something they should have known very early on. I ended up working somewhere else and have gotten a total 35% raise since starting.
I also had an interviewer who did the thing where they get flabbergasted and insistent that you did it wrong because you use the opposite convention from the "official" solution, until you walk through it.
[1] In one interview, I derived the optimal solution to the Dutch Flag Problem despite not having seen the problem before.