←back to thread

369 points surprisetalk | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
jp57 ◴[] No.45065311[source]
One great piece of advice an informal mentor gave me long ago is that there is no information in a rejection.

That is to say that you cannot draw any conclusions about yourself or your interviewing technique or your skills or anything from the single accept==0 bit that you typically get back. There are so many reasons that a candidate might get rejected that have nothing to do with one's individual performance in the interview or application process.

Having been on the hiring side of the interview table now many more times than on the seeking side, I can say that this is totally true.

One of the biggest misconceptions I see from job seekers, especially younger ones, is to equate a job interview to a test at school, assuming that there is some objective bar and if you pass it then you must be hired. It's simply not true. Frequently more than one good applicant applies for a single open role, and the hiring team has to choose among them. In that case, you could "pass" and still not get the job and the only reason is that the hiring team liked someone else better.

I can only think of one instance where we had two great candidates for one role and management found a way to open another role so we could hire both. In a few other cases, we had people whom we liked but didn't choose and we forwarded their resumes to other teams who had open roles we thought would fit, but most of the time it's just, "sorry."

replies(28): >>45065407 #>>45066721 #>>45067214 #>>45067507 #>>45067669 #>>45067749 #>>45067752 #>>45067853 #>>45067877 #>>45068124 #>>45068162 #>>45068646 #>>45068946 #>>45069685 #>>45070016 #>>45070244 #>>45070366 #>>45070789 #>>45070808 #>>45071113 #>>45071336 #>>45071402 #>>45071583 #>>45072653 #>>45073540 #>>45074003 #>>45074100 #>>45081560 #
eszed ◴[] No.45067877[source]
This. I've hired in a number of roles, in several industries, and what they've all had in common is that rejection is never personal.

My first career was in theatre, which a) is (or at least was, back in the day?) much more competitive than tech - par was one callback (ie, second screening) per 100 auditions, and one casting per 10 callbacks; and b) is genuinely, deeply vulnerable - you have to bring your whole self into your work, in a way that you don't in any other field.

It's still never personal, and actors who don't develop thick skins wash out quickly.

I once auditioned three rounds for Romeo, at a company I really liked, and thought I'd killed it. I didn't get the role, and was pretty bummed (particularly since - actors are nothing but petty - I didn't much like the performance by the guy who did). Six months later the casting director button-holed me after seeing another show I was in, and told me I'd been their first choice, and he was sorry they'd not been able to cast me. The trouble was, he said, their only good choice for Juliette was at least a foot shorter than I am, and there was no way that wouldn't have looked awkward.

It's never personal.

Furthermore, that "failed" audition directly led to two later jobs, and I think indirectly to a third. Having a good interview, even in a situation where you don't achieve the immediate goal, can only be good for you - both by developing your own skills, and for creating a reputation for competence within your industry.

replies(5): >>45068170 #>>45068952 #>>45069213 #>>45070903 #>>45071261 #
ip26 ◴[] No.45069213[source]
It's never personal

You never screened candidates who couldn’t act their way out of a wet paper bag?

replies(3): >>45069846 #>>45070137 #>>45071952 #
1. eszed ◴[] No.45071952{3}[source]
Of course I have. I'm thinking of a couple of them right now, and I admire the hell out of them: it took courage to get up there and do what they did. I wasn't going to cast them in that show, right then, but within the limits of the time available I did my best to help them improve. I hoped they did, and I wished them nothing but the best.

I'm glad you brought that up, because it might be the exception that proves the rule. Those auditions did feel more personal, but it was entirely benign: I was rooting for them to succeed, and really felt for them when it became obvious (especially to them) that they had not.

Maybe it's not like that with other fields, or other companies, or other people - but if not, then that's not somewhere anyone should have to work. There's no incompatibility between high standards and human decency.