Re:A list of lists of interview questions
by ALittleLight on Sunday December 30, 2018 @11:40PM
(#18793046)
I don't understand any part of what you've written.
Regarding tenure, I don't understand how that's applicable to hiring new people.
Regarding the imaginary candidate I think this is supporting my point - no? Just like you wouldn't want to trust someone who offered no evidence for their abilities, I want to discern whether people can stand up to arguments and make compelling arguments for their case. In order to get the evidence I put them in a position to stand up to arguments and put arguments forward.
Regarding your thoughts about how this filters people, I think you've summarized it incorrectly. Even if I agreed that asking people to argue against me in an interview was "bullshit" then that wouldn't filter only "for people who can deal with your bullshit,(as in: have other options) and don't mind doing so". Clearly, the people who have no other option would also put up with the tactic, as they have no other option. Thus, the filter, as you put it, filters only people who don't mind putting up with the interview question. This is actually a point in my favor because if the candidate is not comfortable arguing for or against positions in a professional context then they would not be a good fit for the role.
Finally, you suggest "fixing your culture and being straight with people." I think I am being straight with the interviewee. I tell them upfront that if I say anything they disagree with I want them to push back on me, that I think disagreement and debate is positive and sometimes necessary. Again, the role requires disagreeing and pushing back on arguments, often in situations where there is pressure not to, so I think giving friendly encouragement and setting up a hypothetical situation where I will disagree with the candidate is a very reasonable thing to do.
Regarding tenure, I don't understand how that's applicable to hiring new people.
Regarding the imaginary candidate I think this is supporting my point - no? Just like you wouldn't want to trust someone who offered no evidence for their abilities, I want to discern whether people can stand up to arguments and make compelling arguments for their case. In order to get the evidence I put them in a position to stand up to arguments and put arguments forward.
Regarding your thoughts about how this filters people, I think you've summarized it incorrectly. Even if I agreed that asking people to argue against me in an interview was "bullshit" then that wouldn't filter only "for people who can deal with your bullshit,(as in: have other options) and don't mind doing so". Clearly, the people who have no other option would also put up with the tactic, as they have no other option. Thus, the filter, as you put it, filters only people who don't mind putting up with the interview question. This is actually a point in my favor because if the candidate is not comfortable arguing for or against positions in a professional context then they would not be a good fit for the role.
Finally, you suggest "fixing your culture and being straight with people." I think I am being straight with the interviewee. I tell them upfront that if I say anything they disagree with I want them to push back on me, that I think disagreement and debate is positive and sometimes necessary. Again, the role requires disagreeing and pushing back on arguments, often in situations where there is pressure not to, so I think giving friendly encouragement and setting up a hypothetical situation where I will disagree with the candidate is a very reasonable thing to do.