This post was originally written for my blog at miko.ademagic.com/blog/i-read-the-strangest-interview

I read The Shortest, Strangest Engineering Interview I've Ever Done, a blogpost by Daniel Brain a.k.a. @bluepnume – what I would have called "The most productive interview" he'd ever done.

I thought it was so good that I had to write to him to tell him, something I typically don't do. He had me hooked through the entire read, and I left it feeling satisfied for both parties involved, even though it seems the writer didn't. I also felt compelled to write my thoughts down for the blog, something I am hoping to do more of.

tl;dr

1. Daniel puts out a job, uses reasonable hiring practices that have worked for him for years.
2. A funny response hooks him, and the Candidate actually looks really good. Gets an interview.
3. Chat starts off well. Candidate asks some clarifying questions and doesn't like the answers. Interview is cut short, despite Dan trying to save it.
4. Further exchanges occur, but they're all strangely hostile.

I think 2 bullets were dodged here.

Bullet 1: A short interview is a good interview.

At the beginning of interviews, I like to tell candidates something like "I blocked out (an hour) of your time to be safe, but it should only take about (45 minutes), maybe even less if we get to the answers we're after". Sometimes, interviews can feel like a dragged out interrogation where someone tries to poke holes in your experience and intelligence until one of you breaks.

I like to run interviews as two-way, and both parties should know where they sit as the conversation unfolds. My goal is to get to answers as quickly as possible for both of us. If I need more info, I'll dig further. If you don't have it, I want you to feel comfortable enough to tell me.

This can be challenging as the power dynamic is usually in favour of the Interviewer, especially with all the redundancies in the tech sector over the past few years. But in Dan's case, it didn't seem to be an issue for the Candidate. As Dan points out, they could have been burned by long interview processes where it was the case, or they could just not be desperate for this job.

In any case, the Candidate did an awesome thing. They asked about the process, determined it did not suit them, and declined further consideration for the role. Everyone saves time and energy. Dan did what any professional in the situation would do by trying to find a compromise, but the Candidate already had their mind made up.

They saved themselves a lot of effort for a role that they felt they would end up not aligning with. They could have stopped at any other point along the hiring process, but they made a key assessment at the beginning and decided progressing was not worth it. Beautiful. Everyone should feel good about this. Everyone dodges a bullet.

It should have ended here. But then...

Bullet 2: Avoid brilliant jerks.

For some reason, the Candidate decides to respond soon after to confirm the end of the exchange. They do so unprofessionally and sometimes even offensively, personally targeting Dan with insults.

I don't know what the motivation is for this kind of response. Based on what Dan wrote, it felt so clean-cut – even if they didn't, everyone should have felt closure. A confirmation is a nice paper trail, but further interaction, especially not constructive, is totally unnecessary.

As a hiring manager, I'd be thankful this person didn't continue with the process. If they managed to land the role on technical ability alone, they would be difficult to keep happy, and even more difficult if unhappy. This kind of attitude would no doubt bring down the rest of the team, compounding the issue. But I bet it'd be tiring for the candidate, too.

So, another bullet dodged.

What should have gone differently?

As the Hiring Mananger, in this case Dan, I would have been satisfied with the end of the phonecall as the end of the conversation. Its obvious the candidate did not want to progress, and it sounds like Dan agreed. But then the next email came, and Dan took the bait. Its a waste of energy, and it should just have been "thankyou, next". I'm glad this blogpost came out of it though.

I would also take away from this that candidates (at least one) find it valuable to know what the interview process is. I typically outline the interview structure before the first interaction, and will also ask for it if I'm the candidate. Recruiters will usually ask for this, too. If you've considered the structure of your interview process, and you can justify the value, then why not share it in advance?

As the Candidate, I would not have written the follow up email if I couldn't do it in a professional manner. They obviously felt a need to respond in such a way, almost like they were on the defense. Or on a power-trip?
Maybe the conversation felt different to the discussion Dan describes, but regardless, the relationship ended with the phonecall. There was no need to burn a bridge, despite the short-term satisfaction it may have brought.

Finally...

Dan ends the post with a question. "What the fuck did I do?". The answer: spent far more energy on this than he should have. Hope he got a good hire in the end, and if you do read this, thanks again for the lesson :)