[gumby]

I think a lot of companies forget that the interview is the applicant selling themselves to the interviewer and *the company selling itself to the applicant". That's a strong "reject" signal to me.

But also some of these examples could be from companies who understand the bidirectional dynamic. E.g. if you consider wearing a suit to be a bad sign the company might just as well be glad you don't want to work at a place like that. Win-win!

My contribution to the argument: people who use vapid business buzzwords/ like "win-win" except in the rare cases where it really is appropriate.

[kelnos]

> think a lot of companies forget that the interview is the applicant selling themselves to the interviewer and the company selling itself to the applicant.

To be fair, I think that's a more recent phenomenon, at least when it comes to hiring low- to mid-career rank-and-file (in the past I think this was a consideration mainly only when trying to hire executives or people with specialized talents). And even then, that only works in a job market that is relatively at equilibrium, or one where applicants are in high demand. Beggars can't be choosers, as the saying goes.

[pcloadletter_]

A bit of short-term thinking, though. Even if companies _right now_ can treat applicants like crap, they probably shouldn't. I'd rather have an applicant accept an offer because they want to, not because they have to. They'll care more about the work and are less likely to flee.