Have you ever been in an interview that was so bad it felt like it lasted hours and you dreaded any kind of followup? Or how about one that was so enjoyable it felt like just a few minutes and you just knew, without a doubt if it was the right choice for you or not? What exactly made the bad ones so bad and the good ones so good?

Over the years, I've sat in a lot of interviews, both as a job seeker and on the hiring side, and in this post I want to share some of the patterns I've noticed in both the ones that went really well, and the ones that didn't.

Before we get started, I want to illustrate my intent here. The items I'm going to discuss should not be taken as "if you do or see this thing, the interview is good or bad". Instead, think of an interview like living a healthy life. Jogging is something that is common to those who live healthy lives. Does that mean that all people who live healthy lives jog? Definitely not...and on the flip side, its common for people who do not live healthy lives to also not jog. But does that mean that all people who do no live healthy lives also don't jog? Again...no. So in this post, I only want to discuss some of things that are common to interviews that either went poorly, or well.

It's important to understand there is no "1 size fits all" when it comes to interviewing...there's no magical formula, and I think we should all be skeptical of any source of information that claims it has one. Each job and each candidate is going to have their own combinations of pros and cons. What one company or person might consider a negative, another might consider a positive. My goal in this article is to discuss some of the patterns I've seen and hopefully spark some conversation on the topic. This is by no means a "Here's how to nail your next interview" instruction manual.

So what contributes to a "bad" interview?

Let's start by laying it all out there...it's not just candidates that can make an interview bad. There are 2 sides to the process, and it's just as easy for the hiring side to tank the interview as it is for the candidate. So let me approach this conversation from both perspectives based on my personal experience.

From the candidate's perspective...

As a candidate, it's always hard to tell if it was me who did a bad job, of if the interview was just bad. But looking back as objectively as I can, there are 3 common things that stand out from interviews which made me really not want to work at a company.

1. They were rushed (especially leadership)

I know people are busy, and interviewing is usually an extra item that's been added to their plate...and more than likely, nothing was taken off that plate to make time. However, many of the interviews that left me knowing I didn't want to work there were the ones where it felt like people didn't have time for me, and were just trying to get through to the next thing.

I mostly notice this with leadership, from managers all the way up to the CEO. I'm sure they had their reasons, but there was definitely a correlation between them trying to hop out of a 30 minute interview 20 minutes into it, and me not wanting the job. Could it have been me? Absolutely...but I noticed this even from jobs where I got an offer...so maybe there's something to it.

2. They barely looked up from the resume or computer

Have you ever tried to talk to someone who's trying to focus on something else? Maybe they're reading a book, and you're trying to tell them a story. Does it really feel like they're interested in what you have to say? That's what I'm referring to here. When the interviewer asks a question based on some piece of information listed in the resume, and they don't bother looking up to listen to the answer. More than likely they're just trying to review all the information, but when this happens, rarely have I walked out feeling like the interview went well...and never have I left wanting to work there.

Now, I do try to assume positive intent as much as I can. Maybe they were busy before the interview and didn't have time to review my resume before hand. Maybe they were trying to find a piece of information they wanted to ask about without us just sitting there in silence. Or maybe they were nervous or shy and used the resume as a way of "hiding". These are all absolutely feasible. But whatever the reason was, when this sort of thing happened, I didn't view the interview as having gone well.

3. The same person was in Every panel/interview.

I only ever saw this with someone in some kind of leadership position. I would go through 2, 3, maybe 4 interviews, and the same person would always be there. Not until I met with someone "higher up" would they not attend. There are certainly many reasons this might have happened. Perhaps it's policy. Maybe they were filling in for someone else. Of course there are many less positive possibilities (trust issues... control issues... etc...), but regardless, one thing remained consistent...the conversations never felt great, and again, I didn't once leave wanting to say yes if they made me an offer. This certainly could have been my own bias, but since I've seen it happen multiple times with similar results, I think it's worth mentioning.

From the hiring side...

Now let's jump to the other side of the table.

I don't just want to list all the ways that someone has tanked an interview here. So I'm only going to discuss 2 common things I witnessed that consistently left us thinking the candidate wasn't a good fit.

1. They got defensive when an alternate idea was presented

Let me start with some clarification here. Defending a thought or idea is not the same thing as becoming defensive. When someone defends an idea, they provide logical arguments and reasoning to support it. But when someone gets defensive, its more of a psychological or emotional response to feeling attacked or challenged.

In my opinion, one of the most important things that makes a work place great is when people can safely challenge one another's ideas. Different mindsets lead to the best solutions, which is why diversity, in all its forms, is so valuable. But in order to reach and maintain this kind of culture, 2 things have to be true...

1. People have to feel safe to communicate their thoughts and ideas.
2. People have to be open to different ideas without taking them as attacks against their own ideas.

So when someone gets defensive in an interview when provided with some differing idea, whether it's questioning why they approached something the way they did, or suggesting an alternative tool, it's a possible sign they could threaten the safety within the company's culture, regardless of how good they are at building software.

2. They didn't ask questions

I believe it was Diane Sawyer who once said something like, "It's the ones that don't ask questions that I worry about." Asking questions tells a lot about someone in general, but especially in interviews. A few questions can reveal interest, curiosity, a willingness and desire to learn, the ability to humbly admit you don't know something, and so much more. So what does it say if someone Doesn't ask questions? Especially in an interview where there's quite obviously loads of information they don't know...

Now, I'm not saying that if you don't ask questions, you won't do well in the interview. Again, I want to stress that this was a common thing seen in interviews that didn't go well. I can honestly say this was not the one thing that caused a candidate not to be selected. But if a list of reasons was to be made for every candidate who didn't get selected, this would be on several lists.

Now, what contributes to a "good" interview?

Alright, so we've seen what can contribute to an interview going poorly. Now it's time for the good stuff. What sorts of things were common between good interviews? Well before we get into the specifics, let's consider what a "good" interview actually is by considering an analogy first...

Let's say two people are on a first date, and they've never met before. The conversation is friendly, engaging, and on-going with no uncomfortable silences. Both are comfortable, able to be their honest and natural selves, and nothing really stands out as "negative". Now, if they don't end up going on a second date...was the first date bad?

I would argue that it was actually a good date. But why? They didn't end up going on a second date...In this example, I look at it as two people having gotten to know one another in a friendly and respectful way, and both gathered sufficient information to know that this just wasn't the right partnership for them. Perhaps one of them is an animal person, and the other doesn't want to live with animals. Maybe one person wanted a family and other didn't. Are any of these things bad? I don't personally think so...they're just incompatible. So what does this have to do with interviews?

Interviews are very much like early dates. Both parties are trying to get to know each other as best they can to determine if they want to enter into a partnership together. So, a "good" interview is one in which both parties are friendly, honest, and able to gather enough accurate information to make an informed decision.

So with that in mind, let's now look at some of the common things I've noticed between "good" interviews.

From the candidates perspective...

It's a great feeling to walk away from an interview as a candidate and know that it went well. Whether you get the job or not, or accept the job or not, it wasn't an unpleasant experience, and that is always a relief (at least it is for me 😛). So what are some of the things that let me walk away feeling like this?

1. It's a conversation, not a quiz

Some of the best interviews I've ever experienced were ones that were treated like conversations. Dialogue was exchanged back and forth. Questions were being asked from both sides to deepen the topics. And the flow of that dialogue naturally evolved to many different areas of the job, the company, the culture, and the technologies.

So often interviews are like math tests in school, where a question is asked, an answer is given. Question, answer, question, answer. This can be effective, and you can certainly have good interviews this way. But one of the things I can fondly look back on were those interviews that were more of a conversation.

I recently had an interview like this. The hour flew by because we were both just having an engaging conversation. They wanted to have a second interview, but I decided to go another direction. But even though I decided I didn't want that particular job, I look at that interview as a very good one.

2. There's candid and honest communication about what it's like to work there

Some of the other interviews that went well were ones where I really felt like I got an honest look at what it was like to work there. The good, the mundane, and the ugly were all shared. There's going to be negatives to any job. There are going to be things you don't care much about, which are neither good nor bad. But if these kinds of things can be fairly, honestly, and accurately discussed, it's a win in my book.

A great example of this was when I was interviewing for a local startup a little while ago. The person I was speaking with was very open and honest, and informed me that their process wasn't very well established yet. That there would be times where it felt like chaos with competing objectives and priorities. I really appreciated their honesty, and even though many would consider this a negative, it provided me with insight. There was a lot of good things about that company, and I ended up taking the job, knowing full well what bumps in the road I might encounter.

3. You're interviewing them just as much as they're interviewing you

I'd be surprised if you hadn't heard some variation of this at some point in your journey. It's an accurate statement, but somehow it often doesn't feel that way. Which is why I wanted to mention it here. I've had a handful of really good interviews where the person or people I talked to acknowledged that the position was Not just theirs to give...but also mine to accept. And just like I needed to show them I was "up to snuff", they needed to do the same for me as well. The respect I felt from these companies was palpable, and something that always stood out to me.

From the hiring side...

When your team is looking to expand, the process can be daunting. From reviewing dozens or even hundreds of resumes, to meeting different people for hours a day over the course of several weeks, it can be a lot. But when you have those really good interviews, they stand out...even if the candidate isn't the right fit for the team.

So what are some of the common things that make those good interviews stand out?

1. They said "I don' know", but were curious

Thinking back to some of the best interviews I attended, 1 thing that always stood out was the candidate's willingness to admit when they didn't know something. But instead of it defeating them, they showed interest and curiosity, quickly turning what many would consider a weakness, into a strength.

This one little action definitely gave candidates who might not have been completely qualified a few extra points. Knowing things and having experience are obviously important, but you just can't teach someone to be curious. So when you see it in someone, it really stands out, and the interviews that went well often included this little nugget.

2. They accepted feedback like a champ

Something else that was very common across most of the good interviews I was involved in was the candidate's ability to take feedback well. Whether it was discussing their take home assessment or their answer to a particular technical question, many good interviews included feedback being provided, and them receiving it well...even talking about how that feedback could be used in another area.

Not all feedback has to be accepted as the "right" way, however. Earlier I mentioned defending ideas. I recall several interviews where the feedback was received well, but the candidate was also able to clearly explain why they hadn't gone down that route.

Obviously just being able to receive feedback well isn't something that is going to guarantee someone gets the job. But of the interviews that went well, it was definitely something that was seen a lot.

Thank you for your time

There is so much that goes into the interview process, both as someone looking for a job, as well as someone hiring for a job, and the process can be overwhelming to say the least. But in my experience, there are some common elements to interviews that don't go so well, and the ones that do.

As a candidate, when it comes to interviews going poorly, I often noticed they were rushed, the interviewer barely looked up from my resume, and the same leader was in almost every panel.

As someone looking to hire, of the interviews that didn't go so well, it was common to see candidates get defensive, and not ask questions.

When it came to interviews going well, however, as a candidate I noticed much more conversation, which included honest and candid information about what it was like to work there, and they acknowledged that they were being interviewed as well.

On the other side of the table, when interviews went well, it was common to find curiosity being portrayed and feedback being received well.

I would love to hear some of the things you've noticed in your interview journey. Perhaps together, we can start to make the whole process just a little bit better.

Thank you for your time, and until next time, Happy Hacking!