Off-Topic

[ggsimmonds]

re: Off-Topic

Give jeans and hoodie a try, gotta get the job first before you can afford the proper attire

Not so much about affording proper attire, its more that clothing is shallow. I've interviewed people that plain over dress for the interview who turn out to be unqualified and nothing but snake oil salesmen and I've interviewed a person who wore a t-shirt and jeans and was by far the most qualified candidate.

My thinking is you are not getting paid for the interview. The interview is to see whether or not the person and the job is a good fit. To best help in determining that, I want the candidate relaxed. So I tell people wear whatever they feel comfortable in. There are limits of course, still gotta dress like you are in public lol

[Fresh Tendrils]

re: Off-Topic

Dressing properly for an interview is the most basic interview etiquette, though. Interviews are about making a good first impression - well enough to be called back for a second interview. Unless you're given specific instructions to dress a certain way then I don't see why you would risk the chance of dressing down.

[ggsimmonds]

re: Off-Topic

Ultimately what I care about is whether or not the person can perform the job functions. I'm not even going to use attire as a tiebreaker.

It does depend on position. If I interview a grant writer, I don't give a damn what they choose to wear. If they want to make a good first impression, they can show me that they have done research prior to the interview.

Now if that position is something like a business liaison? Well I hope they are comfortable dressing formally, because they will be doing it a lot.

I'm pragmatic. Doing something just because its etiquette? Useless to me.

[pietasterp]

re: Off-Topic

Dressing properly for an interview is the most basic interview etiquette, though. Interviews are about making a good first impression - well enough to be called back for a second interview. Unless you're given specific instructions to dress a certain way then I don't see why you would risk the chance of dressing down.

I agree with this. I don't know if this is generational perhaps? But my experience is that no one will ever look askance at you if you're the best-dressed person at your interview, while there's a small chance (albeit non-zero) that someone with an old-school mentality might interpret your lack of dressing up as a lack of respect or understanding of (what used to be) social norms. This is obviously changing, though, with younger generations.

At the end of the day, you probably won't get (or not get) a job because of what you wore on your interview day, but a lot of unquantifiable things go into the vague impression that people use to make hiring decisions, so my take on it is, why not eliminate a potential variable?

[Blzer]

re: Off-Topic

Ultimately what I care about is whether or not the person can perform the job functions. I'm not even going to use attire as a tiebreaker.

It does depend on position. If I interview a grant writer, I don't give a damn what they choose to wear. If they want to make a good first impression, they can show me that they have done research prior to the interview.

Now if that position is something like a business liaison? Well I hope they are comfortable dressing formally, because they will be doing it a lot.

I'm pragmatic. Doing something just because its etiquette? Useless to me.

I agree 99%, but unfortunately that doesn't seem to be the way the world works.

That extra 1% in me also says: "If they dress this way, it might say something about how they think they should approach certain things." Maybe they won't respect their superiors, maybe they will be found to be too lazy... it's just a crapshoot from there is all.

Otherwise, yes I agree.

[ggsimmonds]

re: Off-Topic

I agree with this. I don't know if this is generational perhaps? But my experience is that no one will ever look askance at you if you're the best-dressed person at your interview, while there's a small chance (albeit non-zero) that someone with an old-school mentality might interpret your lack of dressing up as a lack of respect or understanding of (what used to be) social norms. This is obviously changing, though, with younger generations.

At the end of the day, you probably won't get (or not get) a job because of what you wore on your interview day, but a lot of unquantifiable things go into the vague impression that people use to make hiring decisions, so my take on it is, why not eliminate a potential variable?

From the candidate's perspective I agree. There is no reason not to. But from the interviewer's perspective? Its not that important. When I compare two candidates for a position their respective attire isn't factoring into my decision

[pietasterp]

re: Off-Topic

I agree 99%, but unfortunately that doesn't seem to be the way the world works.

That extra 1% in me also says: "If they dress this way, it might say something about how they think they should approach certain things." Maybe they won't respect their superiors, maybe they will be found to be too lazy... it's just a crapshoot from there is all.

Otherwise, yes I agree.

I think everyone would agree that you want the best person for the job, period-end-of-story. The point, though, is that this is hard (if not impossible) to determine in a brief, formal, interview structure, and so you end up factoring in other queues that you may be able to use to figure out if this person would be a good fit or good employee or not. Most of what we use to form impressions is probably not accurate, but I have yet to meet anyone that is better than a coin-flip at hiring good people.

Personally, if I interviewed someone that showed up in a t-shirt and jeans, I'd probably be a little concerned. Maybe they think they're so good that they don't need to dress up? Maybe they've never been in a formal workplace and they simply don't know that it's a social norm to dress up (even a little) for an interview? Maybe they aren't taking this job interview very seriously, or aren't particularly interested?

Put it this way: if you absolutely 100% needed a particular job to save your life, how many of you wouldn't wear a suit and/or tie (or at least business casual) to the interview?

[ggsimmonds]

re: Off-Topic

I think everyone would agree that you want the best person for the job, period-end-of-story. The point, though, is that this is hard (if not impossible) to determine in a brief, formal, interview structure, and so you end up factoring in other queues that you may be able to use to figure out if this person would be a good fit or good employee or not. Most of what we use to form impressions is probably not accurate, but I have yet to meet anyone that is better than a coin-flip at hiring good people.

Personally, if I interviewed someone that showed up in a t-shirt and jeans, I'd probably be a little concerned. Maybe they think they're so good that they don't need to dress up? Maybe they've never been in a formal workplace and they simply don't know that it's a social norm to dress up (even a little) for an interview? Maybe they aren't taking this job interview very seriously, or aren't particularly interested?

Put it this way: if you absolutely 100% needed a particular job to save your life, how many of you wouldn't wear a suit and/or tie (or at least business casual) to the interview?

The bold reminds me of why the interview process can be so difficult. Every interviewer uses heuristic methods in hiring candidates. But we don't all use the same methods. I don't like pretension. Blame it on my philosophy background, but I don't like doing something just because you are "supposed to." Related to that I don't like scripted responses. For example if I ask greatest strength or accomplishment you are proud of and I get an answer as quickly as if I asked what is 2+2 I don't like that. And for sure, if I ask for a weakness don't feed me some BS about trying to do too much lol.

Also though, we are talking about interviews in a blanket sense, like all interviews are the same. If I'm interviewing for something in the academic or intellectual field, the things I'm looking for would be different than if I was interviewing for something in the corporate world.

[ImTellinTim]

re: Off-Topic

I interview quite a bit in an office setting. In an interview, I generally know if I'm NOT going to hire you within the first 5-10 minutes. While I don't expect a person to be wearing a full-on suit for an entry level position, it is definitely strike one if you don't look like you put in an effort to look put together.

[georgiafan]

re: Off-Topic

I hire a lot of people and I usually know whether or not I will hire someone before they even say a word.

edit - autocorrect

[ggsimmonds]

re: Off-Topic

I hire a lot of people and I usually know weather or not I will hire someone before they even say a word.

Yet you wouldn't make it to the interview stage with me

[pietasterp]

re: Off-Topic

The bold reminds me of why the interview process can be so difficult. Every interviewer uses heuristic methods in hiring candidates. But we don't all use the same methods. I don't like pretension. Blame it on my philosophy background, but I don't like doing something just because you are "supposed to." Related to that I don't like scripted responses. For example if I ask greatest strength or accomplishment you are proud of and I get an answer as quickly as if I asked what is 2+2 I don't like that. And for sure, if I ask for a weakness don't feed me some BS about trying to do too much lol.

Also though, we are talking about interviews in a blanket sense, like all interviews are the same. If I'm interviewing for something in the academic or intellectual field, the things I'm looking for would be different than if I was interviewing for something in the corporate world.

Total agreement here; hiring is an inexact science (at best).

While I suppose I agree that no one likes doing anything just because you are "supposed to", I would argue that almost every job in the world consists of doing nothing but activities that you are "supposed to" do (whether you agree or not). It depends on the industry I guess, but few companies would work if everyone were just doing whatever they wanted. So in that sense, it may be a clue if someone would fit in well with your workplace or not.

You also touched on another of my pet peeves: interview questions. I have completely stopped asking about greatest strengths/weaknesses, and other "standard" interview questions. In my opinion, if you are getting unsatisfactory answers, it's because you are asking unsatisfactory questions. Every candidate in the world knows the standard interview questions and how they are "supposed to" (there we go again) 'optimally' answer them. But who learns anything from that? If you ask canned questions, you get canned answers.

My interview has basically slowly morphed over time into walking down to grab coffee with the person at the lounge or nearest purveyor, and just chatting with them. The conversation goes where it goes, and sometimes I learn something, other times I don't. But I would say the "hit rate" is at least as good as the standard 'you-sit-across-from-me-at-a-desk-and-I-fire-questions-at-you' style, and there's at least the chance I'll learn something important in a less structured conversation than I would in a more formal one.

The thing I try to keep in mind is at the end of the day, the interview process selects for candidates that are good at interviewing. In that sense, the best way (in my opinion) to try to make that match best with how they would function in the workplace is to make the interview as much like whatever it is you're hiring them for. So if the job involves lots of personal interactions and conversing with people, try to structure the interview that way. If it involves more solitary problem solving, try to incorporate that into the interview. Whatever you try, I find that asking people to name a time they failed and what they learned from it to be borderline useless at getting to know how anyone would really function in the job.

TL; DR: it's a crap-shoot anyway you look at it. If you're batting anything over 0.500, you're doing really well.

[ggsimmonds]

re: Off-Topic

Total agreement here; hiring is an inexact science (at best).

While I suppose I agree that no one likes doing anything just because you are "supposed to", I would argue that almost every job in the world consists of doing nothing but activities that you are "supposed to" do (whether you agree or not). It depends on the industry I guess, but few companies would work if everyone were just doing whatever they wanted. So in that sense, it may be a clue if someone would fit in well with your workplace or not.

You also touched on another of my pet peeves: interview questions. I have completely stopped asking about greatest strengths/weaknesses, and other "standard" interview questions. In my opinion, if you are getting unsatisfactory answers, it's because you are asking unsatisfactory questions. Every candidate in the world knows the standard interview questions and how they are "supposed to" (there we go again) 'optimally' answer them. But who learns anything from that? If you ask canned questions, you get canned answers.

My interview has basically slowly morphed over time into walking down to grab coffee with the person at the lounge or nearest purveyor, and just chatting with them. The conversation goes where it goes, and sometimes I learn something, other times I don't. But I would say the "hit rate" is at least as good as the standard 'you-sit-across-from-me-at-a-desk-and-I-fire-questions-at-you' style, and there's at least the chance I'll learn something important in a less structured conversation than I would in a more formal one.

The thing I try to keep in mind is at the end of the day, the interview process selects for candidates that are good at interviewing. In that sense, the best way (in my opinion) to try to make that match best with how they would function in the workplace is to make the interview as much like whatever it is you're hiring them for. So if the job involves lots of personal interactions and conversing with people, try to structure the interview that way. If it involves more solitary problem solving, try to incorporate that into the interview. Whatever you try, I find that asking people to name a time they failed and what they learned from it to be borderline useless at getting to know how anyone would really function in the job.

TL; DR: it's a crap-shoot anyway you look at it. If you're batting anything over 0.500, you're doing really well.

I also dislike the standard questions. My first experience interviewing was back when I screened candidates for my supervisor and she handed me a script. I hated that. You cannot script interview questions then express frustration when you get scripted answers. I still ask those questions, because they do still have some utility. But the key for me is to "hide" them in a way that allows for a natural answer. If you ask rapid fire questions you're a bad interviewer. As you said, make it conversational. Once a back and forth is developed you sneak in some standard cookie cutter questions. Sometimes you get nothing out of it, sometimes you gain insight.

Many positions I've interviewed for required an analytical mind. High levels of self awareness are positively correlated to being analytical. So I ask the candidate to give me a weakness of theirs, or otherwise probe them.

Quick little sidenote: Does anyone else feel like they owe special thanks to GPS? My first goal in interviews is to make it relaxed and get the person out of the mindset of viewing the interview as something of a test. And more than any other thing, GPS stories have fulfilled this role lol.

[ImTellinTim]

re: Off-Topic

I wish we could interview like that, but we are bound by civil service laws to ask the exact same questions of everyone. (Local government, though I won't be here for much longer )

[roadman]

re: Off-Topic

I once had an interviewer tell me that they could figure out within 30 seconds if the person would work there or not.