Yeah, that’s fair. It’s very common that candidates get surprised on the downside at the end of the process, though, so I think it’s generally fair for the candidate to hold back some information until you’re sold on them. Though it’d be nice if they didn’t have to.
I don't see how it is inherit to the candidate, probably most people have political believes, OS preferences etc but you should be smart enough to not blurt them out during an interview.
That's the way it ought to be, but unfortunately that's not the way it is considered by many in reality, so it's rational for a candidate to want to avoid that situation.
There could be reasonable ways to accomplish that. Knowing how well a candidate handles frustrating situations is definitely worthwhile, I just think there should be a lot of caution about how the situation is presented so that the candidate doesn't get the wrong impression.
I wouldn't specifically ask for friends and family of course. The moral of the story is to try to collect as many perspectives as you can on the candidate.
It is just one person's opinion. You don't have to try to slam it down as 'petty'.
They didn't say they reject candidates based on this, simply that it doesn't make a 'good impression'. Weather you agree or not, it shouldn't be hard to understand why someone would think that.
It's less effort and seems kinder to give a soft "no" by more-or-less ghosting the candidate. It's better to focus on "yes," actionable interest than get hung-up on where there's no business to be had.
reply