Would have been a huge negative to me. I'm fine to chat with peers and discuss little riddles.
That is not what's happening when you're interviewing me for a job position. You're not my peer. We're not having fun. There's a non-subtle implication that my ability to answer the riddle will impact whether or not I get the job. I would be very annoyed if someone asked a puzzle like this too. It's not a novel puzzle. It's mostly a gotcha where intuition meets math. I could blurt out the answer. But I would instead feel it more important to slowly reason out the answer and appear to discover it on the fly. Which is pretty bullshit. And I would think you're not very smart for thinking this is worth anyone's time.
If I didn't know the puzzle and I failed to get the job I would be mad and it would stick out as something that penalized me unfairly.
In every interview I've done, lunch was explicitly bracketed by "this is a free, casual lunch that won't affect your interview at all".
And as an interviewer, I've never been asked to report on lunch chats.
> You're not my peer. We're not having fun.
Actually, most interviewers are your peers, and they typically know that you're under interview stress and are trying to help. If you can't take a break and de-stress during lunch, you're just hurting yourself.
The power dynamics at play makes someone spending time with me during an interview process where they have nothing to lose and can exert influence in the selection of me for a full time job offer decidedly _not_ my peer in that situation.
Every time I interviewed someone, I ALWAYS asked myself if I would want to work with this person.
Not just, can they do the job? Not just, are they technically competent? But, is this someone I would be comfortable going to, asking for help? Are they someone I can build rapport with, brainstorm new approaches and products with? Do they pass the "have a beer together" test?
Someone who explicitly has an attitude of, "You're not my peer, we're not having fun" doesn't sound like a good collaborator. Doesn't sound like someone who can be an approachable. Doesn't seem like a good mentor to newer members of the team.
> Someone who explicitly has an attitude of, "You're not my peer, we're not having fun" doesn't sound like a good collaborator. Doesn't sound like someone who can be an approachable. Doesn't seem like a good mentor to newer members of the team.
Interviewing is a high stress situation where the person performing the interview ultimately has power. What you're discussing here is how well I can socially fit in - regardless of pressures/stress on my side of the table etc.
It's 100% performative - if I am an interviewee I'm showing you the professional version of myself which is positive attitude and politeness. I'm upholding a social contract.
---
> Do they pass the "have a beer together" test?
I'm not here to have beers with you - I'm here to work. And, I think this is pervasive in regards to hiring. This can be incredibly discriminatory and I would appreciate you interview me on the value I can add with my labor vs. "can I have a beer with this guy?" That's weird to me, and as someone who interviews I work hard to not think this way... "Who I like" isn't necessarily who is going to perform in the role - I have to keep my personal preferences out of my professional decisions in my world... and I think that's fair.
---
Idk - interviewing is not fun for most people. I defend op's "we're not peers, we're not having fun" perspective both as an interviewer, and interviewee. I think it's a reasonable stance to take as long as they're outwardly presenting as professional and polite as that's what actually matters... not "beers"
Neither have I, but unless I was asked to deliver my interview evaluation before the lunch, you can bet any particularly good or noticeably bad flags during lunch would go into it.
Conversely, the couple times I had those "casual" lunches as a candidate, "I'm jetlagged" was a graceful way to lie out of the question why I wasn't eating much.
I feel like everyone here is missing OPs point. It seems like they had a mostly typical interview, which the candidate had probably been through a bunch of but for whatever reason wasn't to intrigued by the company. Maybe the candidate thought it was too boilerplate... I don't know. But then during lunch, when a handful of collegues are casually throwing around brain teasers, the candidate realized he would like the atmosphere. This doesn't seem too wild to me. But then again, software engineers are some of the most sensitive people I've ever worked with.
One reason for the lunch is to try and relax a bit and test “cultural fit”, which is more like a blind date between two people to see if there is any spark. Ideally it is a two way conversation, where the candidate and the interviewers get to judge each other.
There is a problem where cultural fit “tests” are heavily biased against minorities - for example most any sports discussion is dominated by your social class.
Enjoying brain teasers matches a particular type of geek, and the discussion likely veered or was encouraged in that direction by the candidate. It wasn’t Machiavellian, which perhaps you are more responsive to?
That is not what's happening when you're interviewing me for a job position. You're not my peer. We're not having fun. There's a non-subtle implication that my ability to answer the riddle will impact whether or not I get the job. I would be very annoyed if someone asked a puzzle like this too. It's not a novel puzzle. It's mostly a gotcha where intuition meets math. I could blurt out the answer. But I would instead feel it more important to slowly reason out the answer and appear to discover it on the fly. Which is pretty bullshit. And I would think you're not very smart for thinking this is worth anyone's time.
If I didn't know the puzzle and I failed to get the job I would be mad and it would stick out as something that penalized me unfairly.