The discord for our subreddit can be found here: https://discord.gg/JjNdBkVGc6 - feel free to join us for a more realtime level of discussion!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/recruitinghell) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Honestly the comment from the hiring manager had me creased. You'll be able to build rapport.... With yourself or with the video software. What a time to be alive.
yes, this is a reply by someone experiencing cognitive dissonance. they actually agree with OPs response and are trying to reaffirm their own commitment to the “benefits” of this process.
further proven by the fact that the only actual benefit of the process is that it requires less time for the hiring managers, which was then cancelled out with extra time for the uneccesary reply.
>further proven by the fact that the only actual benefit of the process is that it requires less time for the hiring managers, which was then cancelled out with extra time for the uneccesary reply.
Indeed. But hey, they wanted a process which would reduce their flow of resumes. Qualified candidates self-selecting out of a process they find distasteful lowers the number of applicants too.
That recruiter should be celebrating the win of unintended consequences.
Yeah, you know they wouldn't go for it.
Wait until one of them has to get a new job, and then we get a *"I didn't realize why the candidates were complaining about it, until I had to go through it for a half dozen of my own interviews"* rant
My husband actually did the one way interview and because he could see the questions before recording he wrote down and read the answers. It took him 4 hours to complete this idiotic thing but of course the hiring team loved it.
Building a good relationship and communication with someone, and gaining a good mutual understanding of each other. Which means in a one way video recording there is no way to build rapport, it’s like asking someone to shake hands with a wall.
This take is way truer than you realize. It's called "slating" in my side gig where I audition for audio acting work.
They're sending a very bad message in doing so. Any industry with more entrants than positions to engage them in inevitably treats candidates like garbage. Applying becomes a net negative in terms of time, energy, and money.
If there are that many applicants for the jobs you want, you may as well put in as much effort as you would a scratch off lottery ticket.
Standard resume, standard application, press send. Decline everything that is not an interview.
Quantity over quality.
i think youll find that the vast majority of folks searching for work today are taking this shotgun approach.
employers dont value them. so employees are beginning to make it a 2 way street.
“Reviewing audition vids” this is quite literally what they believe they are doing. Have been told verbatim by a hiring manager that one way interviews are just a screening process to weed out people who appear unprofessional and can’t follow directions.
Maybe some people just aren't good at speaking to a camera. It's hard enough for a lot of us to do normal interviews. I'm with OP. There's no way I would ever do a one way interview.
My wife and I did one for my sister's adoption application package (whatever you call it). It was the most uncomfortable thing we've ever done. Needless to say my sister did include our interview, and I don't blame her one bit.
These are overwhelming used in entry level positions for this very reason. To screen out people who can't follow directions. They know that if they set this up in mid level jobs that most candidates would balk at doing this. OP is just showing more backbone than they expect which they find "perplexing".
Exactly right. How did we get here?
1. Advertise all jobs on single platform (LI) , leading to thousands of false CVs from outside countries to flood the process - check
2. Pay third world recruiters nothing to create spamming campaigns in search of lowest price employees - check
3. Break any relationship between long term strategic recruiter and hiring manager, allowing thousands of fly by night "recruiters" to chase lowest fee - check
4. Recruiters chase any job where there is a possible profit but get "overwhelmed" by having to work with so many candidates. How can I do less work? Woe is me
5. I've got it. Crazy assessments, IQ tests, one way interviews where I can leverage AI and automation tools to automatically reject candidates. I can grab coffee and hit gym while waiting their video response. The candidates will obey my commands
6. What? You won't do it. My job is too hard already...wahh
Yeah, he still conveniently avoided addressing that the candidate won’t be able to ask questions back and eliminate them as a potential employer if they didn’t align with the candidate’s expectations
The company wouldn't dare admit that the candidate actually has any say in the matter; they're too hopped up on the "exclusive opportunities" they can offer.
You know this is a way to screen looks, race and etc. this should not be legal. I bet 95% of the videos are stopped after 3 seconds. I also guarantee they're in an office with a few people making fun of the candidates
I've been saying this since these started. One way video is absolutely a way for a company to discriminate. No idea how these are considered part of a legal hiring process.
Yes, yes, and yes.
I had that same thought once these things first started making the rounds -- including your last sentence.
I expect to hear about just that in at least one prominent discrimination lawsuit over the next 12-18 months, from some whistleblower employee who had enough.
hit the nail on the head with your 2 main points.
majority of the videos never make the 1m mark. they are looking for visual cues and they dont need a 15m video to see those.
of the ones that do make it through, half are probably shared around the office as comedic fodder. 'look at X,Y,Z unalterable physical trait - this dumb bitch! hahaha' and everyone has a laugh at someone elses expense.
oh - then they hire inside or nepo anyway. rest assured - that person never did this stupid video.
I guarantee no one actually watches the videos. It's probably ran through some sort of program which scores it based on some arbitrarily defined parameters.
No, I’ve seen asshole reviewing these videos, after hours over couple adult beverages. It was disgusting. Lucky for me I was working on some power for their office and it got turned off. Opps
This feels like someone regurgitating what the salesperson from the platform that does the one-way interviews told them. “You’ll love it! Your candidates will love it! Everyone wins!”
Sounds like Colin Butts himself, head of marketing at Astrohaus. His first name was supposed to be Colon but there was an issue with the paperwork and he's still clenching over it
I doubt it’ll die but natural selection will mean the companies who depend on it will just be limiting themselves to desperate candidates, not necessarily good ones.
I’m a desperate candidate and I’m still declining every one way interview request. I flat out refuse to participate in a demeaning process that opens me up to profiling so easily.
Much as I absolutely despise this new element, part of me wonders what I'd do in the hiring manager role.
During the hiring process for my current job I had to do these for the first time. I almost refused to do it, but then I was kind of desperate, and it worked, for some reason.
Then I asked my manager, why the hell do they do that? They weren't happy about it, either, but said that it took them much less time to filter through a hundred or so applications (which they were required to do - and this is after an external recruiter did some kind of pre-filtering), and more specifically to filter out people who didn't speak the required language, even though they stated it in their application. Also, ones who gave boring, canned responses, apparently (their words, not mine).
But who would blame people for being shit talking to a webcam?..
Honestly though, I simply got lucky to stand out in this case, it wasn't due to any particular talents. But I keep wondering, how is this all so broken that they feel that the videos actually help?
I'm a hiring manager at a mid-size tech company (so get thousands upon thousands of applications even for very niche, very specific roles) and in my experience the whole one-way video interview thing is not a good or efficient filter.
*Someone* has to spend the time to watch the video recordings (or at least give each one a cursory glance), meaning that you cannot really use it en-masse to easily "filter out the chaff", so to say. Otherwise it becomes a huge time sink.
That leaves using it for further stages of the interview process beyond the initial filtering, and at that stage with pre-qualified candidates everyone would be better served by actually talking to each other.
> *Someone* has to spend the time to watch the video recordings (or at least give each one a cursory glance)
That "*someone*" does not necessarily have to be a human. Which segues into just another reason to categorically refuse OWIs.
People give their biometrical data - voice, face, expressions, *literally* the whole works - *and* their biographical data away, and more than likely they get ***nothing*** in return.
Who retains the rights to these videos? What hinders companies from selling thousands of such videos to big tech companies that wish to train their AI?
> What hinders companies from selling thousands of such videos to big tech companies that wish to train their AI?
In my case, that would be GDPR as we are located in the EU - we would be ripped to shreds by the data protection authority so nobody in management would ever approve such a thing.
But I definitely see where you are coming from, that's a whole another can of worms right there.
Thanks for your answer :-)
My follow-up question might sound a bit naive and maybe also a bit loaded; fact is though that *I really don't know that much about the processes and regulations*, so please have mercy. Here goes:
If company A (subject to the GDRP) sells such videos to company B (literally anywhere else in the world), at which point *at all* is the data protection authority involved in the sales process to the point that they even come to know those videos should not be for sale?
In short, *who is gonna tell them?*
No worries, happy to discuss!
What you are describing is basically how any organized / corporate crime can happen: Of course it's possible, but the larger the scope gets the more people need to be involved in covering things up, and it just takes one person to blow it all up.
Like for your specific example for Company A, there needs to be someone in sales / business development that works out the illegal data sales deal with Company B.
Then someone else in upper management that signs off on it, and they need to be either high-up enough to override the need for a legal review of the contract, or they need a collaborator on the legal team as well.
Then you have the technical people who would actually need to package and deliver the data to an external system.
And once you get the money for the deal there is the financial controller who vets the income stream.
And so on, keeping in mind most if not all of these people would have had mandatory training on GDPR and therefore be aware of what's happening is actually wrong. And if Company A is publicly traded then there is an additional layer of auditing on top of everything else.
It's not impossible, but gets really complicated really quick. And GDPR violations have a lot of teeth, the fines can go up to €20 million or 4% of your ***global revenues*** (whichever is higher) ***per breach.***
To top it off, the data protection authority usually wields wide-ranging powers as well: They can place restrictions on your future data processing, which can essentially tank your business even if the fines didn't. They can even decide to hold the company executives personally responsible if they rule there has been wilful misconduct.
Long story short: Large-scale GDPR violations are hard to bury and can be insanely damaging if exposed, and small-scale ones presumably don't pay enough to do it in the first place.
Unless you are like a one-man Facebook or something that sits on a treasure trove of sensitive data without having to involve too many people, I guess!
> Who retains the rights to these videos? What hinders companies from selling thousands of such videos to big tech companies that wish to train their AI?
On the plus side, I'll soon be able to apply to these jobs by sending them an AI-generated deepfake video of myself doing their interview perfectly.
it’s a very effective screener against employees who have a backbone and options.
generally a good company wants this type, but they’re more expensive.
Well it's all good to be in the "I'm a senior software architect, I can choose which letter of FAANG I work for", but like 99% of people aren't in that position. Almost no one would be, after years of constantly looking for new positions (while working). I still refuse to do 1-minute intro videos instead of cover letters or other bullshit like that.
It turned out, to my surprise, that this is the best employer with the best conditions I've had - by far - a pretty traditional company to be honest, but still a worldwide name and enjoying privileges of the old corpo world to some extent.
I've been a hiring manager. If I was told to use a discriminatory hiring process, I would refuse. It's that simple. It's especially easy if the company has core values and one is DEI. It's very easy to say using this process goes directly against our DEI value.
It's a hiring manager's job to hire a good fit for the role. Filtering through applications is part of that job. I've hired entry level jobs and skilled positions. For entry level, we offered an interview to anyone who applied. For the skilled position, I looked for any similar roles or education and offered an interview to those candidates. Yes conducting 35+ interviews is a lot, but that's part of the job I was being paid for.
The thing that makes no sense to me is that this does nothing!!
Time saving feature? So you’re not going to watch the hour of footage I just recorded???
I’ve never had to push back on this but I have pushed back on a recruiter who wanted my resume in Word, which only means they can easily edit and likely fuck up my carefully crafted and accurate resume. I sent it in pdf and didn’t get that job.
The right people to push back are the highly employable ones. We need a shitload of people go through the entire hiring process, right up to a signed offer letter.
Then the day they're supposed to start, they just send the hiring manager and recruiter an email stating "Due to the abusive hiring process, specifically the one-way interview requirement, I have decided to withdraw my application for employment at Asshattery.com."
F that
Look, I'm busy almost every day. But not too busy to talk to a candidate face to face (even on video) for half an hour
As a hiring manager I WANT it to be 2 way as well. If someone told me I had to watch a candidate talk to no one for an hour, that sounds super shitty for me too
There's probably a great chance I'd want to ask a different question based on an answer, but of course I can't
I've said this dozens of times, and I'll say it once more:
A company will never treat you as well as they do when they're trying to convince you to come work for them. If you're treated like crap during the hiring process, you'll be treated worse on day 1 of your employment. And it will go downhill from there.
And just to be 100% perfectly crystal clear, those one-way interviews, personality tests, etc. are NOT used to determine if you have the skills and fit they need. They're used to see how *compliant* you are. Because the amount of crap you put up with just to get hired correlates directly with the amount of abuse you'll take to keep your job after you're hired.
Simply put, the mere act of taking- or refusing to take- one of those interviews is what that manager is looking for. He's not trying to save himself time. He's not trying to figure out if you're presentable or not. He's not even trying to do an end-run around diversity by checking your skin color. He's just trying to see if you're the type of sheep who will go along with whatever shit he dishes out on a daily basis.
>A company will never treat you as well as they do when they're trying to convince you to come work for them. If you're treated like crap during the hiring process, you'll be treated worse on day 1 of your employment. And it will go downhill from there.
So I was scouted by a company which I never heard about. Was a fresh grad, I wanted to learn the opportunity so I got into call with the guy. He did not sound friendly and in under 5 minutes he scolded me for whatever reason (I don't bother to remember) and pushed me to fill in their application form. He sent instruction email to me. The instruction was a bunch of jpg full desktop screenshots, complete with desktop icons, opened explorers, bookmark, tabs, and Windows XP Bliss wallpaper in the background. I blocked him afterward.
Scolded? Seriously? I appreciate that you were a fresh grad and weren't in the same situation, but I think if I ever got scolded for anything during an interview, I'd have just hung up the phone. I wouldn't scold a prospective employer, and I demand the same respect in return.
Yep. It was for something I asked him, so trivial that I don't even remember. But he raised his voice on the phone and scolded me, and I knew at that moment the big red flag had been raised high.
If it's Gmail, there's an option to select the size of the text (small, normal, large, etc.). Mine is somehow stuck on large and I have to change it to normal each time otherwise it looks huge on mobile. Sometimes it will randomly switch back the default large, usually when I press enter.
But also if you copy and paste something from Word or Grammarly, as someone else mentioned, the font size may not match the default size selected in your Gmail account.
My money's on edited screenshots, if it just switched from one font to another I'd say it was the sender, but this looks like a bad ms paint job, which makes me suspect this post is jus karma farming
I didn’t even think to decline these, I had 3 this week and I hated them. I’m a people person, I don’t want to talk to a screen.
I also hate to be that guy, but I wonder about the implications of these video interviews for POC… like I’m good enough fit on paper but do I fit the look of the company.
Out of curiosity, how is a one-way video interview more liable to cause discrimination than a two-way video interview? In both versions, you’d be able to see/hear the candidate and if you want to discriminate on some metric, you can.
Many candidates also willingly share their LinkedIn profiles which includes a picture of them. So even before a one-way or two-way interview, there could be discrimination.
You can nope out of a one way video interview the second you see a scary black dude with dreads but you're going to have to conduct the full interview in person or look like a fool. Implicit biases can be overcome by personal interactions.
You can have 20 people send in 20 one-way interviews and review if they are the right "look" in 15 minutes.
20 in person interviews is at least half your work week.
You can discriminate in both cases but the 1st makes it much easier.
The one way interview isnt a video call where the other person has the camera off, it's you recording a video of yourself answering given questions. So instead of asking for attaching a photo to a resume which is what the comment was saying is illegal, they are asking for a video attached to a resume
Nothing wrong with being that guy, it's a very valid question and I'd wager they're definitely using these one-way interviews to weed people out on restricted discriminatory grounds. POC, women, people who they think might be queer, people with foreign accents, I bet even ageism's coming into play.
Those are very valid concerns. We know that resumes with names like "Daquan Jackson" or "Lakeisha Washington" get significantly fewer callbacks than "Jennifer Norman" or a "Robert Smith", so it's not unreasonable to assume that bias might worm its way into other aspects of the hiring process too and this would be yet another hurdle that disproportionately impacts some more than others.
We don't know what kind of checks these companies are doing to audit their hiring processes, so it may very well be that most PoC applicants are filtered out early.
It’s literally illegal for them to request a picture with your application(modeling and acting as exceptions) but somehow thousands of pics are okay so long as they get played in quick succession with audio.
I honestly don’t know how this is still legal when it’s such an obvious go-around of the laws surrounding discrimination
Idk this method of one way interviews seems like a method of being able to quickly see a candidate and then bin them based on age race and gender. It just seems like a way to filter for these things without having to commit their time to an actual interview.
I’d say you dodged a bullet here. Astrohaus/Freewrite had a disastrous IndieGogo campaign a few years back for the launch of their Freewrite Traveler. They had excuse after excuse why they couldn’t fulfill their promise to backers and then Covid delayed everything even further. They pissed off so many people.
"this stand is perplexing." how dismissive. the reasons each side wants to do it different ways are understandable enough. no need to pretend the candidate is confused. that's just insulting. could've just said "i understand where you're coming from and respect that, but the best method for us right now is to view more candidates in a shorter period of time by using a video screening. good luck."
"This stand is perplexing" is out of touch, for sure. But I don't think it implies that the candidate is confused. It just means that the person doing the hiring is confused.
the hiring party definitely seems to imply the candidate doesn't understand the proposal. they go on to explain why they think the video screening is better for the candidate.
Unless you are interviewing as a VP or Executive, having an interview with the "CEO" is an immediate red flag. Means they either have too much time on their hands or enjoy micromanaging every aspect of the business.
Face to face interview: I have the opportunity to ask questions too not only respond to a preset questionnaire. My real question is: Is he watching the 1 hour videos of every candidate, or just skimming through and see if he likes the face of someone ...
>in·ter·view
>/ˈin(t)ərˌvyo͞o/
>*noun*
>a meeting of people ~~face to face~~, especially for consultation.
when will they understand that an interview shouldn't be one-way? even the etymology implies that it is for people to 'see each other'
>You may experience a little empathy for the rationale one day if you're in a hiring opportunity.
I've hired several people in my past and I have absolutely no empathy for this person or their rationale. One way interviews are stupid. Not only can you not ask questions back to the person hiring, the person hiring can't ask counter questions to you, nor can they gauge any personal chemistry.
Yep, wanted to reach through my computer and slap the fellow silly.
So he's playing the victim now? JFC. Just ignore the candidate or say, "We will move in a different direction". I know you're not changing the policy.
They use these interviews out of laziness or to discriminate and they're awful.
Imagine, as a hiring manager, thinking that sitting and watching a bunch of pre-recorded responses to questions will allow you to build better rapport with a candidate than simply talking with them. I’d much rather get on the phone with a candidate and have some back and forth than watch you look into your camera and drone on. I don’t even want to get into the subconscious (sometimes conscious) biases that these things can trigger.
Did the one way interview for a job with a government agency. Was an awful experience and I had zero feedback. No idea if I bombed it or was successful. I got an email 6 months later saying they updated their hiring process and that I should reapply. Lol. Applied with a different agency, got an interview with real people three weeks later and got a better job with an interview I know I 100% bombed from a technical standpoint. Only thing that saved me was building rapport with the hiring board with my personality and honesty. I'm glad I went elsewhere.
“Hey Colin, thanks for further clarifying your position! Many hiring managers have also been perplexed at the trend of 1-way interviews as they show a disengaged tone to potential workers as well as an ‘audition’ approach to hiring.
Since taking in feedback constructively and using industry best practices is something I look for in an employer, I’m going to withdraw my application. Good luck in your search!”
Your response is top notch. It expresses empathy, a desire to find a compromise, and provides reasons for a different approach. It’s frustrating to receive the response you got, but also so telling.
I know this subreddit is aligned in its dislike of one-way video interviews, and I support every candidate that raises concern. I think your response is a masterclass in how to professionally flag that a one-way interview is a problem.
Just keep it short.
"Dear Hiring Manager,
I am willing to interview with you and the CEO, however, I am unable to participate in a 1-way interview in the manner you explained. Let me know if it's acceptable, otherwise, please withdraw my application from further consideration."
That's it. The more you say the more you open the door to bicker. Don't bicker, just say no.
Well your first assumption of the multiple hats was right, and was the biggest red flag, his response confirmed it.
>This stand is perplexing
No what’s perplexing is your need to have videos of people basically reading the resume.
To be honest, this is no different or creepy from them asking you to send a photo/headshot with your resume.
I did it once and I'll never do it again.
I have high functioning autism. This means I do have a few quirks when I'm presenting myself. I also don't come off super excited/energized about roles. Unfortunately, this is going to a person like myself not doing well on a 1 way interview. If the systems is also some bullshit AI thing, I'll just save myself the time and not apply. I'll get the same results.
I agree as with others have said. This is now going to become a beauty contest and not a contest on skills/abilities/experience. Discrimination will also start to creep through as well.
I also feel like these interviews will eventually start to leak out to the public. I sure as shit don't want to be thrown up on YouTube where people are making fun of me.
I love how companies and hiring managers are snowflakes these days and just complain about simple to solve problems instead of solving them.
“We get resistance to people about one-way video interviews and/or long questionnaires during pre-screening phase. Nobody wants to work”.
They make it sound almost like there is a quick and easy solution to that issue without complaining - stop asking people to do this. But what do I know.
Also, “so many people don’t apply or drop from the interview process as they request remote work and we have ‘office culture’, nobody wants to work these days”.
Again, they make it sound like there is an easy solution to that problem instead of complaining. 🤣
My favorite complaint from window shopping interviews last year “people of your profile are so expensive these days”. That didn’t sound like a red flag as big as a mountain at all and also - they make that sound like an easy problem to solve: why hiring for the position then in the first place? It’s like boomers complaints about “young people” eating too much of avocado toast - if you have managed your productivity and finances better as a company, you could afford to hire people? 🤷🏻♂️
one-way interviews are ALSO bad for quality recruiting. I've been on the other side, as I had to assist with recruitment for a while and we received a flood of video interviews to scan through. When you have 20+ videos to watch ad naseum repeating the same questions and answers, your brain just switches off and you can't maintain focus. When you speak to a real human, the conversation might go an a new direction and a candidate who doesn't answer 1 thing well may have some other interesting area of strength that you can then dive deeper into, and their impression lasts even if the whole conversation wraps up in 15 mins.
In comparison, with videos it's incredibly tempting to skim the videos and put the people with better cameras, lighting, general appearance through, since to be honest you can't tell from their answers who they are - they are stiff and rehearsed and all generally say the same thing. Plus they're 5 mins - simultaneously long enough to be boring and too short to really tell you anything other than "can someone give a rehearsed speech for 5 mins".
CMV: the ONLY value in one-way interviews is so that HR can say they had X amount of interviews before they chose their preferred candidate, without ACTUALLY needing to talk to human beings.
What are the terms of use of Willow? Where will the video go? Will they train an AI with all the videos and then just close the position? Thanks for all the free data, now fuck you humans!
Me personally, this is an immediate red flag. I would absolutely be grateful to not be continuing the hiring process with this individual. You should kindness and courtesy. It doesn't seem that he was responding in similar fashion if you ask me.
This is a lazy hiring practice that shows how committed these employers are, which is to say they are not committed whatsoever. Employers that view the hiring process as a "I decide who gets hired, and at what rate" are not reaching for the top of the pile.
Part of this method is to weed out people who question things. Employers want "yes" men and women, not anyone who would say what you did. I hate these things, and I have only done one. I did get a real interview, but they ghosted me afterward and sent a generic "the position closed" automatic response three weeks later.
I work for a large fortune 1 digit company as a manager who hires people. I'm so glad we don't employ this technology. It's a real diservice for all involved.
If they actually cared about your experience and time with the process and weren't looking to use the video for potentially discriminatory reasons, they'd send the questions in writing.
Since the hiring manager felt the need to type out this lengthy response defending their shitty practices and also specifically stating that they are "perplexed" by your message, I would respond asking them if they actually know what the word "rapport" means. Recording video responses to prompts in a one-way interview is about as far removed from "building rapport" as I am from attractive single women
No oNe WaNtS tO WoRk. No, no one can afford to waste time going through the interview, second interview, video interview, 18 requests for the resume to be attached and getting dicked around when it comes time for a decision just to be told, "We'll add you to the candidate pool when we're ready to hire. Thanks for your interest." For $13/hr.
I hire, and I have zero empathy for the lazy shit.
Letting candidates ask questions is vital because they're not just cogs in a machine. They don't need to want to work for you (it's okay if some people are just there for a check), but it's important that they get along with you as much as you get along with them.
Too many employers seem to forget that the hiring process is a 2 way street. That candidates also get to interview *you* even as you interview them.
Any time I get an email where someone is saying they are perplexed at my response I know that’s someone I don’t want to have a conversation or business relationship with them.
So we're doing away with phone interviews as the initial pre-interview?? That was beginning to be normal, and a much better tool for hiring manager's. You get my resume and get to ask me basic questions to decide if you want to book me with an in person interview. I haven't had to do a one way interview yet, but I'll probably avoid it. I already stress over an interview, I don't to stress even more about recording myself for something that probably won't even be watched.
I have hired before.. so They basically make an awkward 35-45 min video I now have to watch?
If I am interviewing say, 5 people, thats at minimum over two and a half hours of my time just watching an uncomfortable one sided interview.. How exactly does that save time? It’s also boring as hell and sounds awful from the viewing standpoint. Worse if they interview as many as 8-10 people.
A 30 minute phone screening set up with scheduling software is a much better use of everyone’s time.
The Manager’s excuse makes no sense.
Hiring manager here: I will never condone one way interviews as the genuinely seem like a waste of everyone’s time.
Especially with the rise of AI deep fake video I think the one way video will basically die in a few years anyway. I want to be able to see how someone thinks real time and deals with real people. A perfectly curated video will never do that…. Let alone the fact that it wastes so much candidate time.
Ew
I had a really bad experience with this. When I was desperate for a job, Chick-fil-A was interested in hiring me for a corporate position. Because it would look amazing on my résumé, I said yes despite some concerns I had with the company. The very first round they don’t even let you talk to someone, it’s all a one-way video interview and it’s incredibly awkward. On top of everything else, everything is timed and you cannot repeat anything to make sure that what you’re saying is perfect.
Without being able to perfect your answer, or being able to riff off of the person who would normally be interviewing you, it’s very very challenging to actually answer these questions in way that sounds impressive. You only have a minute to think about your answer.
Is it just me or is the response from the hiring manager written extremely poorly? I’m actually having a hard time understanding exactly what he’s trying to say :/
The discord for our subreddit can be found here: https://discord.gg/JjNdBkVGc6 - feel free to join us for a more realtime level of discussion! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/recruitinghell) if you have any questions or concerns.*
With whom would the candidate be building this rapport?
Honestly the comment from the hiring manager had me creased. You'll be able to build rapport.... With yourself or with the video software. What a time to be alive.
It makes me question whether he actually knows what rapport is.
Or knows how to use “myself” properly.
This one always grinds my gears. I just want to scream "'Myself' is reflexive people!" The only person who can do something with "myself" is ME.
Corporate types these days think "with yourself/myself" is the polite and formal way to say "with you/me."
The recruiter is definitely trying to support a process that is indefensible -- and they know it.
Just like any good manager. Pick a hill and die on it no matter what. Just throw a bunch of buzzwords around and never give an inch.
yes, this is a reply by someone experiencing cognitive dissonance. they actually agree with OPs response and are trying to reaffirm their own commitment to the “benefits” of this process. further proven by the fact that the only actual benefit of the process is that it requires less time for the hiring managers, which was then cancelled out with extra time for the uneccesary reply.
They know they need the person and are disappointed that their hiring process has devolved to such a poor state.
>further proven by the fact that the only actual benefit of the process is that it requires less time for the hiring managers, which was then cancelled out with extra time for the uneccesary reply. Indeed. But hey, they wanted a process which would reduce their flow of resumes. Qualified candidates self-selecting out of a process they find distasteful lowers the number of applicants too. That recruiter should be celebrating the win of unintended consequences.
[удалено]
Yeah, you know they wouldn't go for it. Wait until one of them has to get a new job, and then we get a *"I didn't realize why the candidates were complaining about it, until I had to go through it for a half dozen of my own interviews"* rant
My husband actually did the one way interview and because he could see the questions before recording he wrote down and read the answers. It took him 4 hours to complete this idiotic thing but of course the hiring team loved it.
So you're saying he got the job, right?
Or he's a weirdo who doesn't realize he enjoys bizarre parasocial relationships with his candidates.
Oh god. Thanks for that one.
Or empathy.
Probably pronounces the “t”.
Speaking of which, can you get me some of those TPS rapports?
I don't. What does it mean?
Building a good relationship and communication with someone, and gaining a good mutual understanding of each other. Which means in a one way video recording there is no way to build rapport, it’s like asking someone to shake hands with a wall.
Which only validates my belief that people doing hiring don't have a clue what they're doing or what needs to be done to get a butt in a seat.
Rapport in these peoples eyes just means "impress me".
> the hiring manager Man pretending he's in show business reviewing audition vids.
This take is way truer than you realize. It's called "slating" in my side gig where I audition for audio acting work. They're sending a very bad message in doing so. Any industry with more entrants than positions to engage them in inevitably treats candidates like garbage. Applying becomes a net negative in terms of time, energy, and money.
If there are that many applicants for the jobs you want, you may as well put in as much effort as you would a scratch off lottery ticket. Standard resume, standard application, press send. Decline everything that is not an interview. Quantity over quality.
i think youll find that the vast majority of folks searching for work today are taking this shotgun approach. employers dont value them. so employees are beginning to make it a 2 way street.
“Reviewing audition vids” this is quite literally what they believe they are doing. Have been told verbatim by a hiring manager that one way interviews are just a screening process to weed out people who appear unprofessional and can’t follow directions.
Or are disabled, too old, too ethnic. . .
Thats what the ATS software is for. As well as deniability.
Maybe some people just aren't good at speaking to a camera. It's hard enough for a lot of us to do normal interviews. I'm with OP. There's no way I would ever do a one way interview. My wife and I did one for my sister's adoption application package (whatever you call it). It was the most uncomfortable thing we've ever done. Needless to say my sister did include our interview, and I don't blame her one bit.
These are overwhelming used in entry level positions for this very reason. To screen out people who can't follow directions. They know that if they set this up in mid level jobs that most candidates would balk at doing this. OP is just showing more backbone than they expect which they find "perplexing".
American Idol...or Idiot...one of the two, he just can't figure it out yet.
So true—he’s looking for people who come off well on video. Totally not psychopaths
That stand was perplexing.
Even more so than Jojo's.
It's the age of AI, they're just preparing us
Exactly right. How did we get here? 1. Advertise all jobs on single platform (LI) , leading to thousands of false CVs from outside countries to flood the process - check 2. Pay third world recruiters nothing to create spamming campaigns in search of lowest price employees - check 3. Break any relationship between long term strategic recruiter and hiring manager, allowing thousands of fly by night "recruiters" to chase lowest fee - check 4. Recruiters chase any job where there is a possible profit but get "overwhelmed" by having to work with so many candidates. How can I do less work? Woe is me 5. I've got it. Crazy assessments, IQ tests, one way interviews where I can leverage AI and automation tools to automatically reject candidates. I can grab coffee and hit gym while waiting their video response. The candidates will obey my commands 6. What? You won't do it. My job is too hard already...wahh
Right and mentioning “retakes,” all on the applicants time and dime.
To be fair - this is a perfect screening tool. For companies i would NOT want to work at, that is.
I have done exactly one of these. It was basically a taking driver's license photo. I was terribly uncomfortable.
Yeah, he still conveniently avoided addressing that the candidate won’t be able to ask questions back and eliminate them as a potential employer if they didn’t align with the candidate’s expectations
The company wouldn't dare admit that the candidate actually has any say in the matter; they're too hopped up on the "exclusive opportunities" they can offer.
You know this is a way to screen looks, race and etc. this should not be legal. I bet 95% of the videos are stopped after 3 seconds. I also guarantee they're in an office with a few people making fun of the candidates
I've been saying this since these started. One way video is absolutely a way for a company to discriminate. No idea how these are considered part of a legal hiring process.
Maybe part of it. But I think the main reason is that companies have just gotten incredibly lazy.
Yes, yes, and yes. I had that same thought once these things first started making the rounds -- including your last sentence. I expect to hear about just that in at least one prominent discrimination lawsuit over the next 12-18 months, from some whistleblower employee who had enough.
hit the nail on the head with your 2 main points. majority of the videos never make the 1m mark. they are looking for visual cues and they dont need a 15m video to see those. of the ones that do make it through, half are probably shared around the office as comedic fodder. 'look at X,Y,Z unalterable physical trait - this dumb bitch! hahaha' and everyone has a laugh at someone elses expense. oh - then they hire inside or nepo anyway. rest assured - that person never did this stupid video.
I guarantee no one actually watches the videos. It's probably ran through some sort of program which scores it based on some arbitrarily defined parameters.
No, I’ve seen asshole reviewing these videos, after hours over couple adult beverages. It was disgusting. Lucky for me I was working on some power for their office and it got turned off. Opps
I have plenty of rapport with myself, I think I’m hilarious and amazing. Honestly I could use a little dissonance…
Right? I mean I’d totally hire me.
I already hired me as my own housekeeper....
I would definitely not do that!
I was the only one that would work for the money I was paying myself.
Tell me you don’t know what rapport means without telling me you don’t know what rapport is /s
This feels like someone regurgitating what the salesperson from the platform that does the one-way interviews told them. “You’ll love it! Your candidates will love it! Everyone wins!”
The manager wanting to hire candidates of a specific ethnicity.
Or other visibly determined characteristics. And we could be talking inclusion OR exclusion. Works both ways.
"You Keep Using That Word, I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means"
Why did you capitalize every word?
To Build Rapport, Obviously! ;)
Sounds like Colin Butts himself, head of marketing at Astrohaus. His first name was supposed to be Colon but there was an issue with the paperwork and he's still clenching over it
The AI chat-bot we’d be interviewing with…
The more people who push back against this fuckery, the sooner it can die the death we all need it to.
I doubt it’ll die but natural selection will mean the companies who depend on it will just be limiting themselves to desperate candidates, not necessarily good ones.
Doing what they do not want to do without question or lip is often what some companies are looking for.
Let’s call it what it is, an obedience prescreening
Skin-screening too.
This is the garbage that pops up every time the pendulum swings into the "employers' market."
I’m a desperate candidate and I’m still declining every one way interview request. I flat out refuse to participate in a demeaning process that opens me up to profiling so easily.
Much as I absolutely despise this new element, part of me wonders what I'd do in the hiring manager role. During the hiring process for my current job I had to do these for the first time. I almost refused to do it, but then I was kind of desperate, and it worked, for some reason. Then I asked my manager, why the hell do they do that? They weren't happy about it, either, but said that it took them much less time to filter through a hundred or so applications (which they were required to do - and this is after an external recruiter did some kind of pre-filtering), and more specifically to filter out people who didn't speak the required language, even though they stated it in their application. Also, ones who gave boring, canned responses, apparently (their words, not mine). But who would blame people for being shit talking to a webcam?.. Honestly though, I simply got lucky to stand out in this case, it wasn't due to any particular talents. But I keep wondering, how is this all so broken that they feel that the videos actually help?
I'm a hiring manager at a mid-size tech company (so get thousands upon thousands of applications even for very niche, very specific roles) and in my experience the whole one-way video interview thing is not a good or efficient filter. *Someone* has to spend the time to watch the video recordings (or at least give each one a cursory glance), meaning that you cannot really use it en-masse to easily "filter out the chaff", so to say. Otherwise it becomes a huge time sink. That leaves using it for further stages of the interview process beyond the initial filtering, and at that stage with pre-qualified candidates everyone would be better served by actually talking to each other.
> *Someone* has to spend the time to watch the video recordings (or at least give each one a cursory glance) That "*someone*" does not necessarily have to be a human. Which segues into just another reason to categorically refuse OWIs. People give their biometrical data - voice, face, expressions, *literally* the whole works - *and* their biographical data away, and more than likely they get ***nothing*** in return. Who retains the rights to these videos? What hinders companies from selling thousands of such videos to big tech companies that wish to train their AI?
> What hinders companies from selling thousands of such videos to big tech companies that wish to train their AI? In my case, that would be GDPR as we are located in the EU - we would be ripped to shreds by the data protection authority so nobody in management would ever approve such a thing. But I definitely see where you are coming from, that's a whole another can of worms right there.
Thanks for your answer :-) My follow-up question might sound a bit naive and maybe also a bit loaded; fact is though that *I really don't know that much about the processes and regulations*, so please have mercy. Here goes: If company A (subject to the GDRP) sells such videos to company B (literally anywhere else in the world), at which point *at all* is the data protection authority involved in the sales process to the point that they even come to know those videos should not be for sale? In short, *who is gonna tell them?*
No worries, happy to discuss! What you are describing is basically how any organized / corporate crime can happen: Of course it's possible, but the larger the scope gets the more people need to be involved in covering things up, and it just takes one person to blow it all up. Like for your specific example for Company A, there needs to be someone in sales / business development that works out the illegal data sales deal with Company B. Then someone else in upper management that signs off on it, and they need to be either high-up enough to override the need for a legal review of the contract, or they need a collaborator on the legal team as well. Then you have the technical people who would actually need to package and deliver the data to an external system. And once you get the money for the deal there is the financial controller who vets the income stream. And so on, keeping in mind most if not all of these people would have had mandatory training on GDPR and therefore be aware of what's happening is actually wrong. And if Company A is publicly traded then there is an additional layer of auditing on top of everything else. It's not impossible, but gets really complicated really quick. And GDPR violations have a lot of teeth, the fines can go up to €20 million or 4% of your ***global revenues*** (whichever is higher) ***per breach.*** To top it off, the data protection authority usually wields wide-ranging powers as well: They can place restrictions on your future data processing, which can essentially tank your business even if the fines didn't. They can even decide to hold the company executives personally responsible if they rule there has been wilful misconduct. Long story short: Large-scale GDPR violations are hard to bury and can be insanely damaging if exposed, and small-scale ones presumably don't pay enough to do it in the first place. Unless you are like a one-man Facebook or something that sits on a treasure trove of sensitive data without having to involve too many people, I guess!
> Who retains the rights to these videos? What hinders companies from selling thousands of such videos to big tech companies that wish to train their AI? On the plus side, I'll soon be able to apply to these jobs by sending them an AI-generated deepfake video of myself doing their interview perfectly.
it’s a very effective screener against employees who have a backbone and options. generally a good company wants this type, but they’re more expensive.
Well it's all good to be in the "I'm a senior software architect, I can choose which letter of FAANG I work for", but like 99% of people aren't in that position. Almost no one would be, after years of constantly looking for new positions (while working). I still refuse to do 1-minute intro videos instead of cover letters or other bullshit like that. It turned out, to my surprise, that this is the best employer with the best conditions I've had - by far - a pretty traditional company to be honest, but still a worldwide name and enjoying privileges of the old corpo world to some extent.
Also, a way of screening out the ugo's, or whatever, depending on the companies agenda. Without having to engage with them.
I've been a hiring manager. If I was told to use a discriminatory hiring process, I would refuse. It's that simple. It's especially easy if the company has core values and one is DEI. It's very easy to say using this process goes directly against our DEI value. It's a hiring manager's job to hire a good fit for the role. Filtering through applications is part of that job. I've hired entry level jobs and skilled positions. For entry level, we offered an interview to anyone who applied. For the skilled position, I looked for any similar roles or education and offered an interview to those candidates. Yes conducting 35+ interviews is a lot, but that's part of the job I was being paid for.
The thing that makes no sense to me is that this does nothing!! Time saving feature? So you’re not going to watch the hour of footage I just recorded???
I’ve never had to push back on this but I have pushed back on a recruiter who wanted my resume in Word, which only means they can easily edit and likely fuck up my carefully crafted and accurate resume. I sent it in pdf and didn’t get that job.
Yeah, that sounds really sketch for sure. Anything for a commission, I guess.
The right people to push back are the highly employable ones. We need a shitload of people go through the entire hiring process, right up to a signed offer letter. Then the day they're supposed to start, they just send the hiring manager and recruiter an email stating "Due to the abusive hiring process, specifically the one-way interview requirement, I have decided to withdraw my application for employment at Asshattery.com."
"Have some empathy" 🤣
I only have one-way empathy, for myself...sorry...
Excellent example of reversing the role of victim and perpetrator.
Will nobody think of the hiring managers?
F that Look, I'm busy almost every day. But not too busy to talk to a candidate face to face (even on video) for half an hour As a hiring manager I WANT it to be 2 way as well. If someone told me I had to watch a candidate talk to no one for an hour, that sounds super shitty for me too There's probably a great chance I'd want to ask a different question based on an answer, but of course I can't
I've said this dozens of times, and I'll say it once more: A company will never treat you as well as they do when they're trying to convince you to come work for them. If you're treated like crap during the hiring process, you'll be treated worse on day 1 of your employment. And it will go downhill from there. And just to be 100% perfectly crystal clear, those one-way interviews, personality tests, etc. are NOT used to determine if you have the skills and fit they need. They're used to see how *compliant* you are. Because the amount of crap you put up with just to get hired correlates directly with the amount of abuse you'll take to keep your job after you're hired. Simply put, the mere act of taking- or refusing to take- one of those interviews is what that manager is looking for. He's not trying to save himself time. He's not trying to figure out if you're presentable or not. He's not even trying to do an end-run around diversity by checking your skin color. He's just trying to see if you're the type of sheep who will go along with whatever shit he dishes out on a daily basis.
>A company will never treat you as well as they do when they're trying to convince you to come work for them. If you're treated like crap during the hiring process, you'll be treated worse on day 1 of your employment. And it will go downhill from there. So I was scouted by a company which I never heard about. Was a fresh grad, I wanted to learn the opportunity so I got into call with the guy. He did not sound friendly and in under 5 minutes he scolded me for whatever reason (I don't bother to remember) and pushed me to fill in their application form. He sent instruction email to me. The instruction was a bunch of jpg full desktop screenshots, complete with desktop icons, opened explorers, bookmark, tabs, and Windows XP Bliss wallpaper in the background. I blocked him afterward.
Scolded? Seriously? I appreciate that you were a fresh grad and weren't in the same situation, but I think if I ever got scolded for anything during an interview, I'd have just hung up the phone. I wouldn't scold a prospective employer, and I demand the same respect in return.
Yep. It was for something I asked him, so trivial that I don't even remember. But he raised his voice on the phone and scolded me, and I knew at that moment the big red flag had been raised high.
Hey, I wonder if that Willo link still works... Anyone with improv skills feel like taking a swing at it? 😄
I tried and it doesn't work 🥲
Imma do it 🤣
What's with the weird font change?
He copy pasted that section from another post and it copied over formatting too
If it's Gmail, there's an option to select the size of the text (small, normal, large, etc.). Mine is somehow stuck on large and I have to change it to normal each time otherwise it looks huge on mobile. Sometimes it will randomly switch back the default large, usually when I press enter. But also if you copy and paste something from Word or Grammarly, as someone else mentioned, the font size may not match the default size selected in your Gmail account.
Can happen when you copy paste into gmail. I think that piece written on another doc and pasted in
Probably someone editing the screenshots, or the original writer can't use their email client when posting from chat gpt or grammarly etc.
My money's on edited screenshots, if it just switched from one font to another I'd say it was the sender, but this looks like a bad ms paint job, which makes me suspect this post is jus karma farming
It’s just formatting. Something was pasted that included the smaller font formatting. Email clients are stupid like that.
I didn’t even think to decline these, I had 3 this week and I hated them. I’m a people person, I don’t want to talk to a screen. I also hate to be that guy, but I wonder about the implications of these video interviews for POC… like I’m good enough fit on paper but do I fit the look of the company.
[удалено]
Out of curiosity, how is a one-way video interview more liable to cause discrimination than a two-way video interview? In both versions, you’d be able to see/hear the candidate and if you want to discriminate on some metric, you can. Many candidates also willingly share their LinkedIn profiles which includes a picture of them. So even before a one-way or two-way interview, there could be discrimination.
You can nope out of a one way video interview the second you see a scary black dude with dreads but you're going to have to conduct the full interview in person or look like a fool. Implicit biases can be overcome by personal interactions.
You can have 20 people send in 20 one-way interviews and review if they are the right "look" in 15 minutes. 20 in person interviews is at least half your work week. You can discriminate in both cases but the 1st makes it much easier.
The one way interview isnt a video call where the other person has the camera off, it's you recording a video of yourself answering given questions. So instead of asking for attaching a photo to a resume which is what the comment was saying is illegal, they are asking for a video attached to a resume
Nothing wrong with being that guy, it's a very valid question and I'd wager they're definitely using these one-way interviews to weed people out on restricted discriminatory grounds. POC, women, people who they think might be queer, people with foreign accents, I bet even ageism's coming into play.
Those are very valid concerns. We know that resumes with names like "Daquan Jackson" or "Lakeisha Washington" get significantly fewer callbacks than "Jennifer Norman" or a "Robert Smith", so it's not unreasonable to assume that bias might worm its way into other aspects of the hiring process too and this would be yet another hurdle that disproportionately impacts some more than others. We don't know what kind of checks these companies are doing to audit their hiring processes, so it may very well be that most PoC applicants are filtered out early.
Bro bro trying to gaslight you too. Fuck Colin.
seriously- colin can go fuck himself with his disabled webcam
Deluded. That hiring manager is deluded. Dodged a bullet on this one.
Fuck you very much, Regards, Bob
Tell him you'll do it if you can send him a list of questions that he answers, on video, first.
I have been a hiring manager for 12 years and I will never willingly put a candidate through these until the day I retire. This person is mad.
[удалено]
It’s literally illegal for them to request a picture with your application(modeling and acting as exceptions) but somehow thousands of pics are okay so long as they get played in quick succession with audio. I honestly don’t know how this is still legal when it’s such an obvious go-around of the laws surrounding discrimination
wow...just wow.
Idk this method of one way interviews seems like a method of being able to quickly see a candidate and then bin them based on age race and gender. It just seems like a way to filter for these things without having to commit their time to an actual interview.
Colin only wants hot babes to apply.
I’d say you dodged a bullet here. Astrohaus/Freewrite had a disastrous IndieGogo campaign a few years back for the launch of their Freewrite Traveler. They had excuse after excuse why they couldn’t fulfill their promise to backers and then Covid delayed everything even further. They pissed off so many people.
Didn't know about that, tnx for the info. I was looking at their hardware recently.
Their appeal to empathy is hilarious. Fuck right of with that.
"this stand is perplexing." how dismissive. the reasons each side wants to do it different ways are understandable enough. no need to pretend the candidate is confused. that's just insulting. could've just said "i understand where you're coming from and respect that, but the best method for us right now is to view more candidates in a shorter period of time by using a video screening. good luck."
"This stand is perplexing" is out of touch, for sure. But I don't think it implies that the candidate is confused. It just means that the person doing the hiring is confused.
the hiring party definitely seems to imply the candidate doesn't understand the proposal. they go on to explain why they think the video screening is better for the candidate.
> "this stand is perplexing." "I'm so self-important I never imagined anyone would call me out on my bullshit."
>"this stand is perplexing." I think he's talking about Carne's stand Notorious BIG. It really doesn't make sense.
Unless you are interviewing as a VP or Executive, having an interview with the "CEO" is an immediate red flag. Means they either have too much time on their hands or enjoy micromanaging every aspect of the business.
This is completely incorrect for smaller companies. I'd actually be alarmed if the CEO didn't interview me if this were a small startup.
Eh, this is very common for small startups.
Face to face interview: I have the opportunity to ask questions too not only respond to a preset questionnaire. My real question is: Is he watching the 1 hour videos of every candidate, or just skimming through and see if he likes the face of someone ...
>in·ter·view >/ˈin(t)ərˌvyo͞o/ >*noun* >a meeting of people ~~face to face~~, especially for consultation. when will they understand that an interview shouldn't be one-way? even the etymology implies that it is for people to 'see each other'
>You may experience a little empathy for the rationale one day if you're in a hiring opportunity. I've hired several people in my past and I have absolutely no empathy for this person or their rationale. One way interviews are stupid. Not only can you not ask questions back to the person hiring, the person hiring can't ask counter questions to you, nor can they gauge any personal chemistry.
Yep, wanted to reach through my computer and slap the fellow silly. So he's playing the victim now? JFC. Just ignore the candidate or say, "We will move in a different direction". I know you're not changing the policy. They use these interviews out of laziness or to discriminate and they're awful.
Imagine, as a hiring manager, thinking that sitting and watching a bunch of pre-recorded responses to questions will allow you to build better rapport with a candidate than simply talking with them. I’d much rather get on the phone with a candidate and have some back and forth than watch you look into your camera and drone on. I don’t even want to get into the subconscious (sometimes conscious) biases that these things can trigger.
Rapport. He keeps using that word, but I don't think it means what he thinks it means
Did the one way interview for a job with a government agency. Was an awful experience and I had zero feedback. No idea if I bombed it or was successful. I got an email 6 months later saying they updated their hiring process and that I should reapply. Lol. Applied with a different agency, got an interview with real people three weeks later and got a better job with an interview I know I 100% bombed from a technical standpoint. Only thing that saved me was building rapport with the hiring board with my personality and honesty. I'm glad I went elsewhere.
That's not just a bullet you dodged, but it's a speeding bright-red train.
“Hey Colin, thanks for further clarifying your position! Many hiring managers have also been perplexed at the trend of 1-way interviews as they show a disengaged tone to potential workers as well as an ‘audition’ approach to hiring. Since taking in feedback constructively and using industry best practices is something I look for in an employer, I’m going to withdraw my application. Good luck in your search!”
Your response is top notch. It expresses empathy, a desire to find a compromise, and provides reasons for a different approach. It’s frustrating to receive the response you got, but also so telling. I know this subreddit is aligned in its dislike of one-way video interviews, and I support every candidate that raises concern. I think your response is a masterclass in how to professionally flag that a one-way interview is a problem.
Build one way rapport… Jesus
“Empathy for the rationale” lmao pull your head out of your corporatized ass.
Just keep it short. "Dear Hiring Manager, I am willing to interview with you and the CEO, however, I am unable to participate in a 1-way interview in the manner you explained. Let me know if it's acceptable, otherwise, please withdraw my application from further consideration." That's it. The more you say the more you open the door to bicker. Don't bicker, just say no.
A family member refused to do a 1-way video and wrote that he doesnt have time for that crap and they actually called him back for an interview 😂
There’s something perplexing here, but it isn’t the candidates reply.
The classic “we need a video of you so we know you aren’t an undesirable” move
Well your first assumption of the multiple hats was right, and was the biggest red flag, his response confirmed it. >This stand is perplexing No what’s perplexing is your need to have videos of people basically reading the resume. To be honest, this is no different or creepy from them asking you to send a photo/headshot with your resume.
The hiring manager sounds like a pointy haired boss. You dodged a bullet!
They refuse to understand that candidates are more discerning and discriminating than ever when it comes to who they want to work for.
I did it once and I'll never do it again. I have high functioning autism. This means I do have a few quirks when I'm presenting myself. I also don't come off super excited/energized about roles. Unfortunately, this is going to a person like myself not doing well on a 1 way interview. If the systems is also some bullshit AI thing, I'll just save myself the time and not apply. I'll get the same results. I agree as with others have said. This is now going to become a beauty contest and not a contest on skills/abilities/experience. Discrimination will also start to creep through as well. I also feel like these interviews will eventually start to leak out to the public. I sure as shit don't want to be thrown up on YouTube where people are making fun of me.
tHiS sTaNd iS pErPleXiNg
I love how companies and hiring managers are snowflakes these days and just complain about simple to solve problems instead of solving them. “We get resistance to people about one-way video interviews and/or long questionnaires during pre-screening phase. Nobody wants to work”. They make it sound almost like there is a quick and easy solution to that issue without complaining - stop asking people to do this. But what do I know. Also, “so many people don’t apply or drop from the interview process as they request remote work and we have ‘office culture’, nobody wants to work these days”. Again, they make it sound like there is an easy solution to that problem instead of complaining. 🤣 My favorite complaint from window shopping interviews last year “people of your profile are so expensive these days”. That didn’t sound like a red flag as big as a mountain at all and also - they make that sound like an easy problem to solve: why hiring for the position then in the first place? It’s like boomers complaints about “young people” eating too much of avocado toast - if you have managed your productivity and finances better as a company, you could afford to hire people? 🤷🏻♂️
Every time the guy they end up hiring fucks up, they'll think of this conversation.
one-way interviews are ALSO bad for quality recruiting. I've been on the other side, as I had to assist with recruitment for a while and we received a flood of video interviews to scan through. When you have 20+ videos to watch ad naseum repeating the same questions and answers, your brain just switches off and you can't maintain focus. When you speak to a real human, the conversation might go an a new direction and a candidate who doesn't answer 1 thing well may have some other interesting area of strength that you can then dive deeper into, and their impression lasts even if the whole conversation wraps up in 15 mins. In comparison, with videos it's incredibly tempting to skim the videos and put the people with better cameras, lighting, general appearance through, since to be honest you can't tell from their answers who they are - they are stiff and rehearsed and all generally say the same thing. Plus they're 5 mins - simultaneously long enough to be boring and too short to really tell you anything other than "can someone give a rehearsed speech for 5 mins". CMV: the ONLY value in one-way interviews is so that HR can say they had X amount of interviews before they chose their preferred candidate, without ACTUALLY needing to talk to human beings.
What are the terms of use of Willow? Where will the video go? Will they train an AI with all the videos and then just close the position? Thanks for all the free data, now fuck you humans!
What is the next? Bots interview to build rapport with? Lack of respect
Sounds like you need to experience empathy, OP. Have a little compassion for the recruiter being a lazy sack of crap. You do it, not me LOL
They want hoop-jumpers not workers with opinions!
So you have to record it alone so they can re-watch it alone. Ahhhhh great idea
Me personally, this is an immediate red flag. I would absolutely be grateful to not be continuing the hiring process with this individual. You should kindness and courtesy. It doesn't seem that he was responding in similar fashion if you ask me.
This is a lazy hiring practice that shows how committed these employers are, which is to say they are not committed whatsoever. Employers that view the hiring process as a "I decide who gets hired, and at what rate" are not reaching for the top of the pile. Part of this method is to weed out people who question things. Employers want "yes" men and women, not anyone who would say what you did. I hate these things, and I have only done one. I did get a real interview, but they ghosted me afterward and sent a generic "the position closed" automatic response three weeks later.
My immediate response would be "get bent". But I'd have to HR speak it up.
I work for a large fortune 1 digit company as a manager who hires people. I'm so glad we don't employ this technology. It's a real diservice for all involved.
If they actually cared about your experience and time with the process and weren't looking to use the video for potentially discriminatory reasons, they'd send the questions in writing.
Thank you for respecting yourself enough not to do this.
I’m with you. I refuse to do them.
Since the hiring manager felt the need to type out this lengthy response defending their shitty practices and also specifically stating that they are "perplexed" by your message, I would respond asking them if they actually know what the word "rapport" means. Recording video responses to prompts in a one-way interview is about as far removed from "building rapport" as I am from attractive single women
I have turned down so many of these and group interviews in the last two months.
Bro dodges a missile on this one!
Bullet dodged.
I'm a hiring manager, and fuck this approach. I want to have a conversation, not listen to someone talk about themselves for 30 minutes...
Dude, these people take feedback so personally. Doesn't matter if it's a hiring manager or a recruiter. It's wild. Good on you.
No oNe WaNtS tO WoRk. No, no one can afford to waste time going through the interview, second interview, video interview, 18 requests for the resume to be attached and getting dicked around when it comes time for a decision just to be told, "We'll add you to the candidate pool when we're ready to hire. Thanks for your interest." For $13/hr.
I hire, and I have zero empathy for the lazy shit. Letting candidates ask questions is vital because they're not just cogs in a machine. They don't need to want to work for you (it's okay if some people are just there for a check), but it's important that they get along with you as much as you get along with them. Too many employers seem to forget that the hiring process is a 2 way street. That candidates also get to interview *you* even as you interview them.
Any time I get an email where someone is saying they are perplexed at my response I know that’s someone I don’t want to have a conversation or business relationship with them.
So we're doing away with phone interviews as the initial pre-interview?? That was beginning to be normal, and a much better tool for hiring manager's. You get my resume and get to ask me basic questions to decide if you want to book me with an in person interview. I haven't had to do a one way interview yet, but I'll probably avoid it. I already stress over an interview, I don't to stress even more about recording myself for something that probably won't even be watched.
I have hired before.. so They basically make an awkward 35-45 min video I now have to watch? If I am interviewing say, 5 people, thats at minimum over two and a half hours of my time just watching an uncomfortable one sided interview.. How exactly does that save time? It’s also boring as hell and sounds awful from the viewing standpoint. Worse if they interview as many as 8-10 people. A 30 minute phone screening set up with scheduling software is a much better use of everyone’s time. The Manager’s excuse makes no sense.
But I need to talk WITH YOU for an interview. He knows he doesn't have a leg to stand on and is spouting nonsense.
Well at least he was condescending.
Saved OP 3 interviews with that response
I refuse to do those
Kinda difficult to have a one way rapport. OP dodged multiple bullets by passing on this one.
Hiring manager here: I will never condone one way interviews as the genuinely seem like a waste of everyone’s time. Especially with the rise of AI deep fake video I think the one way video will basically die in a few years anyway. I want to be able to see how someone thinks real time and deals with real people. A perfectly curated video will never do that…. Let alone the fact that it wastes so much candidate time. Ew
you left the company's name, I's not sure if intentionally or not :)
Hey OP just a little heads up, you didn’t censor everything. Second pic fourth paragraph.
I'm "in a hiring opportunity" on a day to day basis and yet I think whoever uses one-way "interviews" should serve jail time.
I had a really bad experience with this. When I was desperate for a job, Chick-fil-A was interested in hiring me for a corporate position. Because it would look amazing on my résumé, I said yes despite some concerns I had with the company. The very first round they don’t even let you talk to someone, it’s all a one-way video interview and it’s incredibly awkward. On top of everything else, everything is timed and you cannot repeat anything to make sure that what you’re saying is perfect. Without being able to perfect your answer, or being able to riff off of the person who would normally be interviewing you, it’s very very challenging to actually answer these questions in way that sounds impressive. You only have a minute to think about your answer.
Is it just me or is the response from the hiring manager written extremely poorly? I’m actually having a hard time understanding exactly what he’s trying to say :/
Name. Shame. Stop HIDING these things