Usually, in my experience anyway, it doesn't get that far.

The blog post just refers to interviewees saying "I wouldn't want to work with the interviewer" when they mistakenly feel that they did poorly in the interview.

Anecdotally from the real world, when I (headhunter) get feedback from a candidate shortly/immediately after an interview, if they feel they did poorly they tend to add that there were things they didn't like about the opportunity (a person, the office, something). People that feel they did well don't usually go negative as easily.

But I also go back to the employer and get their feedback ASAP, and when that comes back positive I immediately pass that message to the candidate. Assuming the employer's feedback is somewhat prompt, the candidate doesn't get too much opportunity to go negative, and once they "feel wanted" by the employer they usually trend back positive. Offers come shortly thereafter.

It blows my mind that any applicant gives negative feedback to the company before finding out of they got an offer. Even if they hated the interview and would never want to work there, an offer is still fodder to get a better offer somewhere else. Being positive is a strictly dominant strategy before an offer is made.

My comment was as a 3rd party recruiter, and the blog post was based on feedback from anonymous interviewees after anonymous interviews. I don't expect that candidates would give negative feedback to a company directly without having a sense of the employer's opinion.

It doesn't have to be as extreme as that.

If I think I did poorly on an interview, I will probably stop following up with the company and will more aggressively pursue other options. In particular, I might accept another offer prematurely because I assume one isn't forthcoming from the company.

As the post mentions, this relates heavily to timing. It's the long delays which many companies introduce that force candidates to make assumptions/prune early, especially since some companies will never even tell you you were rejected. Speeding up candidate responses is one of the easiest ways to dramatically improve a hiring process.

> Wait. They think they didn't do well, got an offer, but turned it down because they think they didn't do well on the interview?

Yup. Happened to me: I felt like I did poorly in one of the interviews and had to ask myself whether I'd be happy in the job if the day-to-day was like the interview.

It probably wouldn't have been, but I had another offer on the table and the negative experience swayed me in the direction of the other offer.

Yep. They had a bad experience during the interview. When they ask themselves "how do I feel about this company?", their main data point is negative.

I think the idea is that they think they didn't do well, decide that on second thought, they don't really want the job anyway, and move on to the next possible opportunity. Then if later they get an offer, they don't change their mind.

No, that's not what he said. After they think they didn't do well, people subconsciously start looking for reasons why they don't want to work there anyway: commute is bad, maybe they won't fit the culture, no free lunches etc.