How to Catch a Cheating Candidate in an Interview(thinkingthrough.substack.com)
thinkingthrough.substack.com
How to Catch a Cheating Candidate in an Interview
https://thinkingthrough.substack.com/p/how-to-catch-a-cheating-candidate
31 comments
I mean, the other option is to stop asking irrelevant questions that "need" to be gamed...
I once had a candidate who Googled answers for an interview. At first, his pauses were almost believable. I slowly progressed to more conceptual questions and he didnt realise he was spending too much time before reading out stuff verbatim.
I agree. Google will often ask the "number of marbles in a jar" question to see if you can think in scales using abstract statistics in their interviews. Now if you suck at math but are just fine in logic and code writing, should this limit you? When I interview people, I'm being attentive to show the interviewee respect but to also catch misrepresentations.
Most people don't code without having reference material available because unless it's just rehashing old code all the time for the same project, you're likely adding or optimizing something about your project. Same with every other part of the infrastructure and service matrix.
Most people don't code without having reference material available because unless it's just rehashing old code all the time for the same project, you're likely adding or optimizing something about your project. Same with every other part of the infrastructure and service matrix.
I think the assumption here is a non-technical interviewer filling low value roles.
I can vouch that these behaviors occur, I’ve experienced a couple of them. Camera on, live (not photo) image verification and single connection to the shared sessions are a must. Pre-Covid, it was galling to determine that the interviewee passing the phone screen and the interviewee failing the in-site were two different people.
I dunno. I also see it as a red flag for a interviewee as a boss who is likely to tap my shizzle and make sure that the clock is being worked on their terms, not collectively.
For instance, one interview I was having camera issues after messing with some UVC webcam switchers so I can mix it like a Twitch feed, and a request to do a meeting came in. Now sure, my bad for not being ready and testing my setup an hour or two before the meeting but we're both sitting there and while I'm trying to work out the camera issues, I'm trying to coax the interviewer into starting the meeting as both of us are there now and there are a lot of interaction to talk about prior to needing a face to face. His reluctance indicates to me that he's wanting to do exactly that trick... try to gauge my non-verbal language.
Lots of people read and watch videos on how to spot liars. The fact that a polygraph can be defeated shows you why its bullshit and that a attentive eye can be made to watch for a red flag. But the real clincher that you're supposed to do is give them rope to hang themselves on. This guy was so tight to doing it his way that he hung himself and I cancelled any further interest once he hung up with the recruiter. I have no problem finding work and we're doing him a favor not the other way around.
Now you can't bullshit a bullshitter and you can tell through extensive Q & A along with tracking the amount of time to see if someone knows/doesn't know AND someone trying to con by covering up. Which is why you NEVER EVER LIE IN AN INTERVIEW!!! Admit defeat if you don't know, nobody is perfect.
The best SE hacks are the ones that can sell you and stab you in the back. You couldn't figure that out in one call regardless. That's why it's so dangerous and even in-person will someone try to run the gambit on you. And why the weakest link in security is the human.
You need multiple people involved in a interview loop to make sure the likelihood is high that they can do the job. Most people who cannot "talk the talk" cannot even attempt to "walk the walk". Which is why you cannot use canned questions and answers that are already on the internet. It's a waste of time because nobody works tech without having access to the Internet and reference.
For instance, one interview I was having camera issues after messing with some UVC webcam switchers so I can mix it like a Twitch feed, and a request to do a meeting came in. Now sure, my bad for not being ready and testing my setup an hour or two before the meeting but we're both sitting there and while I'm trying to work out the camera issues, I'm trying to coax the interviewer into starting the meeting as both of us are there now and there are a lot of interaction to talk about prior to needing a face to face. His reluctance indicates to me that he's wanting to do exactly that trick... try to gauge my non-verbal language.
Lots of people read and watch videos on how to spot liars. The fact that a polygraph can be defeated shows you why its bullshit and that a attentive eye can be made to watch for a red flag. But the real clincher that you're supposed to do is give them rope to hang themselves on. This guy was so tight to doing it his way that he hung himself and I cancelled any further interest once he hung up with the recruiter. I have no problem finding work and we're doing him a favor not the other way around.
Now you can't bullshit a bullshitter and you can tell through extensive Q & A along with tracking the amount of time to see if someone knows/doesn't know AND someone trying to con by covering up. Which is why you NEVER EVER LIE IN AN INTERVIEW!!! Admit defeat if you don't know, nobody is perfect.
The best SE hacks are the ones that can sell you and stab you in the back. You couldn't figure that out in one call regardless. That's why it's so dangerous and even in-person will someone try to run the gambit on you. And why the weakest link in security is the human.
You need multiple people involved in a interview loop to make sure the likelihood is high that they can do the job. Most people who cannot "talk the talk" cannot even attempt to "walk the walk". Which is why you cannot use canned questions and answers that are already on the internet. It's a waste of time because nobody works tech without having access to the Internet and reference.
> NEVER EVER LIE IN AN INTERVIEW!!!
In my experience, this is bad advice. I would refine it by saying "never lie about work history, experience, or knowledge in an interview". I am forced to lie about things like how much I give a damn about your company, my ambitions, and how much I think I'm worth by the conventions of interview culture. I think of it as a lying skills assessment.
In my experience, this is bad advice. I would refine it by saying "never lie about work history, experience, or knowledge in an interview". I am forced to lie about things like how much I give a damn about your company, my ambitions, and how much I think I'm worth by the conventions of interview culture. I think of it as a lying skills assessment.
If you exaggerate anything, I’ll reject you. I don’t need BS. If you say you got a patent and it’s only applied for, you’re not truthful.
And if you say “I don’t know that, it’s not something I’ve worked on before” you score culture points.
And if you say “I don’t know that, it’s not something I’ve worked on before” you score culture points.
That's fine, and I would say there's generally no need for that. But let's be real: you're not going to hire me if I tell you the reason I want to work for your company is because I need money to pay bills and couldn't give two shits about it otherwise, so I'm going to lie to you about that.
One interview in which we proceeded without a camera, I started googling my questions immediately after asking them. These were open ended questions, explicitly not l33tcode. When I noticed that the first response’s phrasing was always from the first page of search results, I knew we were getting to “no”.
Thankfully, I don’t work now at a place that hires contractors.
Thankfully, I don’t work now at a place that hires contractors.
I don't have a LinkedIn profile picture specifically because I don't want to get extra advantage for my race+gender. Is that going to be an issue for me going forward?
> In 2021, everyone has a LinkedIn account now, especially in the US. Check for candidates' LinkedIn profile links and check their profile pictures. If there is no profile picture, that's a red flag. (explained later why)
> In 2021, everyone has a LinkedIn account now, especially in the US. Check for candidates' LinkedIn profile links and check their profile pictures. If there is no profile picture, that's a red flag. (explained later why)
Exactly, never had issues so I call BS on that one.
This one is hard as I have a gut feeling that sometimes it does happen as I have an Anglo name but am Asian-American. However, if it does happen, it may also be a place or team I wouldn't want to work for.
It's hard to explain but the 'bro'-ism can be deeper than you may think. Let alone a cultural fit a manager may be trying to achieve - as "cult of personality" will also tend to pull out all the stops to "prove" themselves..
But without feedback from the interview loops, we just don't really know.
It's hard to explain but the 'bro'-ism can be deeper than you may think. Let alone a cultural fit a manager may be trying to achieve - as "cult of personality" will also tend to pull out all the stops to "prove" themselves..
But without feedback from the interview loops, we just don't really know.
I'm not in the job market, but I have a LinkedIn account. Despite occasionally nudging from LinkedIn, I have never bothered to add a profile picture.
Isn't that more-so up to your employer to decide if it's an extra advantage? I'm not saying you're wrong, but I think intentionally obscuring who you are isn't solving a problem.
> In 2021, everyone has a LinkedIn account now, especially in the US.
"everyone". Is it discrimination if I can prove that I was rejected for not having a social media account?
"everyone". Is it discrimination if I can prove that I was rejected for not having a social media account?
To me the fact that these types of scams are fairly routine means that you can't sign any kind of medium or long term contract without actually working with the person for a short term first. Start with authorizing an hour of work, then a day.
I actually think this type of thing is another reason to completely avoid fixed fee contracts.
I actually think this type of thing is another reason to completely avoid fixed fee contracts.
Good point. Once they're actually working contract, it's actually very easy to can them if they're not what they're supposed to represent.
That said, if you have worked with peers and they all vouch for you, I wouldn't bother with the contract part, just make sure that team fit is there and that he can deal with whatever office politics are in the current org in it's current state. After all, in two years, it all could change.
That said, if you have worked with peers and they all vouch for you, I wouldn't bother with the contract part, just make sure that team fit is there and that he can deal with whatever office politics are in the current org in it's current state. After all, in two years, it all could change.
Why all this is really extreme I can't help but wonder if the candidate can recruit someone to pass an interview for them can't they also recruit that person if they're stuck on some task once they are hired?
yeah but thats going to be the case when the accomplice is a close fried... my experience here is about the contractors from contracting companies... they put people in position and move on to next contractor. they don't have time to help the one they placed... it may take a while for the incompetent contractor to get fired and then contracting company to replace them.. Which they will do ...
> Candidates that cheat are often coming for the contracting roles. That's likely because full-time employees get a background check and that deters candidates from cheating, but contractors usually don't go through same rigrous checking.
I must work with a great contracting agency, then -- their vetting process is more rigorous than what almost every direct hire process I experienced entailed.
I must work with a great contracting agency, then -- their vetting process is more rigorous than what almost every direct hire process I experienced entailed.
ahh.. may be your lucky.. would you say the same is true for contracting companies from outside USA?
I've never worked with or for contracting companies outside the US, so I have no idea.
<< If there is no profile picture, that's a red flag.>>
This is completely ridiculous... Did this guy ever heard about the concept of privacy?
But also, if you do a lot of things suggested in this article, that would be a red flag for me as a candidate.
Like asking to take a screenshot of my face to compare later...
This is completely ridiculous... Did this guy ever heard about the concept of privacy?
But also, if you do a lot of things suggested in this article, that would be a red flag for me as a candidate.
Like asking to take a screenshot of my face to compare later...
(for exploitative "contracting" roles)
have you ever hired any prospective candidates by following this nasty method ?
"Watch out for lip sync. Yep, not kidding. Some candidates will have a voice call going on with their accomplice who will be listening and answering the question while the onscreen candidate tries to lip-sync or hide their mouth when talking."