[ramblinjan]

Thanks for the feedback. I'll have to give it some thought because it seems like I failed to explain this well enough (though I may just straight up be wrong about it altogether).

The candidates who ended up frustrated weren't feeling that way because we were jerks to them (I don't think). Maybe what I'm getting at is don't be afraid to push people to the limit a little bit in a task, because their reactions to it say as much as their approach.

[TheCowboy]

Most jobs don't require people who can endure getting "pushed to the limit" every week, hour, day, etc. Especially while under close observation and scrutiny. That would strain most any person. If it is that demanding, then be upfront about that instead of surprising candidates during a stressful interview.

People should be aware of what they accidentally select for in candidates. I feel like I am skilled at remaining calm in crisis work situations where people (customers, co-workers, owners) are dependent upon me, but I can bomb interviews just as easily as the next person. Some approaches might consistently filter people who get stressed during interviews, rather than select people who maintain poise.

[ramblinjan]

> then be upfront about that instead of surprising candidates during a stressful interview

People are rarely humble enough to actually reflect on this if they're excited about a job.

> People should be aware of what they accidentally select for in candidates

Absolutely.

[bcbrown]

What I liked was the philosophy of deciding what personal traits are relevant for this job, and then specifically interviewing for those traits. The edit was because people seemed to be keying off the "frustrated" part, and that wasn't what I was trying to call attention to.