Most of the time, if the interviewer formed these concerns, you’re just opening yourself up to give them space for confirmation bias to take over. What might have been one bad interview session out of six, which might not rule you out, now becomes a crater of destruction that will absolutely be a big talking point in the debrief and feedback.
Additionally it comes off as insecure. Like you can’t tolerate the idea that you might actually have made mistakes or lacked skills or fluffed your resume or communicated badly, and you deserve a chance to debate your way out of it.
Finally it also seems like fishing for negative feedback you can disagree with later. You likely won’t get significant feedback after the interviews are over since companies don’t reveal it for legal reasons, so you’re trying to get interviewers off-guard to get that feedback and later act like it’s unfair.
As an interviewer I would strictly reply that I need to write down my notes from the interview, review and analyze them, and compare notes in the debrief session before I will develop any type of feedback, positive or negative. The interview itself is a place for information exchange, and trying to form opinions about positives / negatives on the spot amplifies the likelihood of bias or lack of context.
It sounds like you are hiring for a bureaucratic corporate borg and parent poster wants to work for a human team striving to achieve something. Different strokes.
I’m not saying anything about how I prefer to hire, apart from the fact I refuse to formulate concrete opinions inside an interview session and must take time after to ruminate on it and analyze details.
The rest of it is just simply the facts of interviewing pretty much anywhere. I’ve seen it happen much more strongly in young startups than big corporations, but it’s extremely common everywhere.
Small startups usually have fewer formalized practices in recruiting and less standardized HR practices, which leads to more bias and unfair judgment calls in recruiting compared with larger companies, not less.
> As an interviewer I would strictly reply that I need to write down my notes from the interview, review and analyze them, and compare notes in the debrief session before I will develop any type of feedback, positive or negative.
And everybody will know that you either seriously lack substance or that you are clearly lying.
Nobody except bitter / insecure people would think that. Everybody knows this is just how the hiring world works and random individual interviewers are not free to choose moralistic ideals about feedback.
That’s not being unmoralistic. That’s severely lacking social skills.
You can say whatever you want to the interviewee because if that goes to court it’s their word against yours. That works both ways of course, but at least allows people to say whatever they really mean rather than keeping someone in ignorant bliss.
That being said it only applies to countries where recording someone against their will is illegal.
Additionally it comes off as insecure. Like you can’t tolerate the idea that you might actually have made mistakes or lacked skills or fluffed your resume or communicated badly, and you deserve a chance to debate your way out of it.
Finally it also seems like fishing for negative feedback you can disagree with later. You likely won’t get significant feedback after the interviews are over since companies don’t reveal it for legal reasons, so you’re trying to get interviewers off-guard to get that feedback and later act like it’s unfair.
As an interviewer I would strictly reply that I need to write down my notes from the interview, review and analyze them, and compare notes in the debrief session before I will develop any type of feedback, positive or negative. The interview itself is a place for information exchange, and trying to form opinions about positives / negatives on the spot amplifies the likelihood of bias or lack of context.