I, of course, agree with you:)

I give this as advice because I don't really care if the candidate likes me or not. What I care about if he can control himself and behave befitting the occasion.

If you can't do that on an interview there is no way you can do that later during normal work.

And I have clear, strict no asshole policy. We come to work to solve problems which does not require insulting each other. There is going to be problems and there is not going to be any insults because we understand we all want the same thing even if we have different capabilities, approaches and value systems.

I understand this doesn't mean people don't want to insult each other. There are always going to be tensions and what not. But I want workplace to be safe space for everybody. There is already enough stress, no need for people to be additionally miserable by asshole coworkers who can't control themselves.

>> I give this as advice because I don't really care if the candidate likes me or not.

I interview and hire a lot and I really do care and want the candidate to like me. Is this this rare, naive, both?

I would guess naive, because I have had the same issue in the past. Employees do not all feel the need to be our friends, and it is not realistic to believe they will become such. While it’s important to get along with your coworkers, it should never be necessary that they “like” you. Personally, I like everyone at work that is a competent and dedicated worker; a rising tide floats all boats. Want to make friends with me at work? Be part of a team that consistently exceeds my expectations.

Trying to get everybody to like you can override your ability to say what needs to be said and act when you need to act. Also, it is usually impossible to please everybody and by trying to do that you can easily turn everybody against you. Trying to get people to like you can easily impair your objectivity (as if there wasn't enough occasions for that), play favor game and get people to dislike you for playing the game.

Now, just because I don't like somebody or somebody doesn't like me does not we can't behave civil and discuss and try to resolve our differences. Or even agree to disagree but still keep cooperating on this and other matters.

It also doesn't mean I have to go out of my way to get people to dislike me. I am trying to be reasonable, fun, I smile and compliment and I try to find and expect good in everybody until I am proven wrong. It is just I try keep this separate from ability to think straight and cooperate with people.

I'd generally say this is good. Companies with a lot of experience with their process don't seem to realize that the process doesn't stop when they have alienated the candidate, they just start to get bad market information in exchange for good market information.

I once thought the result of a programming problem was wrong and questioned the candidate, and he eloquently explained why it was correct.

Now I don't worry about questioning a line of code or result since it is an interesting insight into how the candidate thinks and communicates.

Interviews should consist almost entirely of this dynamic: a conversation, a dialogue, an exploration, of a number of topics, processes and attitudes. Oh, and both ways of course! If you're interviewing for senior position and you don't have anything to ask the interviewer, you're putting a huge red flag on your head (if you've already asked everything in previous interviews, just bring up something in the answers that you found interesting.

Well... I don't think it is on the interviewee to do this (ie start a discussion).

A lot of interviewing advice tells candidates to only speak when they are spoken to and to only answer the questions they are given. It is also a cultural thing, in some cultures candidates will absolutely not volunteer any information on the interview. I can't really fault a candidate for doing that.

On the other hand I can create opportunities for discussion, especially when my interests or expertise and the interests or expertise of the candidate intersect.

> I don't think it is on the interviewee to do this (ie start a discussion)

Sorry I probably didn't explain myself - I mentioned it goes both ways: the discussion should be encouraged by the interviewer (vs "here's a problem I'll check my phone while you whiteboard it"), but the candidate should also seek to do the same - especially if they are senior and good, I expect them to interview me/us. However it's true that it's on the interview to establish an atmosphere where the candidate can be comfortable doing that. I start all my interviews emphasizing this as well as I can, and lead the candidate into questions with stuff like "is there something you would like to know about how we do X here?"

Out of context that advice seems more apt for police interrogation.

No, not really. Advice for police interrogation is: never talk to the police.

If you don't know why, you must watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE

Also, I never said this is my advice. In general I like to volunteer information during interview when I am the candidate. I think it lets me control the situation a little bit better and move to ground that I have much more expertise in.

I am just saying that I can't fault candidate for not doing this.

If I had an interviewer try that on me id hang up.

Try what?

The speak until spoken shit some one mentioned.

I mentioned it. If you red the post carefully enough you would notice I meant this as advice you can read on the Internet. Not something you would ever hear from me and especially on the interview.

I've seen this mentioned in past discussions, and this is definitely the way to do interviews.

Show the candidate a piece of code and let them review it, something they'll actually be doing frequently. You'll get an insight into their understanding of the code and how they communicate improvements.

For a follow-up/bonus round ask them to suggest changes and fix it. A candidate that does this unprompted and well is a positive signal in and of itself.

No stressful whiteboarding and trivia questions. Just a relaxed conversation with their peers that they'd regularly have during work.

It’s really annoying to have an annoyed rude interviewer insist your answer is wrong for 10 minutes until the second interviewer awkwardly explains to the first that you were right, and then act defensive the entire rest of the interview. Some candidates have just gotten tired of the disrespectful interview process. If you intend to test how well we put up with disrespect in the interview, just say so ahead of time so we can cancel and apply elsewhere

goodness, it wasn't disrespect. I actually thought the code was incorrect.

I'm also not questioning something I know is right.

Mostly, I just let them code. When they're done, I always say ... are you satisfied? some go back and check, others stand pat, but this lets them take a fresh look.

I then have the opportunity to question something I think in my heart is wrong. I the example, he was right and I was wrong.

For things that look ok, I sometimes start a discussion about embellishments they could add or other techniques.

I really try not to be that guy. I just want to get to know them.

I had an interview once where I felt like the interviewer really didn't even know the answer to the question they were asking. I was surprised because of how confidently they were giving me the wrong answer. Instead of insulting them I just took it as a red flag to not work there. Or maybe re-interview a few years later.

> confidently they were giving me the wrong answer

This cuts both ways. Interviewers are not by default right. So likewise an interviewer that doesn't know what he's talking and doubles down on it, I'd rather find that out at the interviewer because it points to a dysfunctional organization.

Seems like exactly the sort of "trick" an interviewer might try to use: 'can this person correct someone in authority who is blatantly wrong?'.

Most organisations, it seems, would be served well by people who constructively handle bullshit/misunderstanding from senior people; for some it's absolutely vital.

We will occasionally mix one of these in. We are really looking for folks that can actually say 'no'. In some cases, we will keep tossing out absurd requirement on a 'how would you' project. One that some use is asking for a method that does not exist -- we are hoping they know the language well enough to say 'you mean this or this?' or how they can actually say I don't know, but I know where I could look it up.

It's gone both ways for me. I had one interview where the interviewer got very mad at me, and another where the interviewer was very impressed and was pleased to learn something. I got an offer from the latter company, and accepted.

Mind games, great sign that the company will be fun to work for

Correcting the interviewer and insulting him are two different things.

The difference is whether you aim at correcting the information or whether you are aiming at the interviewer. I want the first one, not the second one.

I had that a few years ago at a very well known digital agency.

The interviewer had on a tshirt that was only fit for rags and did not know anything about the role.

Fast forward to today any interaction with that agency is always like pulling teeth and the lack of knowledge is staggering