[patio11]

I'd be strongly inclined, especially in the current hiring environment, to do whatever else was on the schedule anyway -- finish the interviews, take the candidate to lunch, sell them on the desirability of working at your company, whatever, even if I received obvious signals that it was not a mutual fit.

The rationale is partially "Even if this particular candidate does not end up working for our organization, our treatment of them will be repeated to their friends, who -- since birds of a feather flock together -- likely include other people who we may be interested in hiring."

(And partially it is just that I cannot contort my mind into believing that any serious professional could think that "Our multinational telecommunications company lost your interviwer. Whoops! Happens all the time -- door's on the left, security will see you out" is acceptable outside a Dilbert strip.)

[seiji]

any serious professional

Have you met these bay area social media people?

I applied at twitter a few years ago (a direct referral from ev). The first technical phone interviewer tweeted part of my resume along with a sarcastic comment before the call. He then proceeded to not be very friendly on the phone screen (and called 15 minutes late). A few days later, the second phone interviewer asked half the same questions as the first interviewer.

The recruiting staff was excellent, and the people I met on-site for interviews were great.

"Professional" to the engineering staff seems to mean "I'll do whatever makes me feel good as quickly as possible."

[toomuchcoffee]

our treatment of them will be repeated to their friends, who...

Conversely: the message behind the incredibly popular "bum's rush" technique of flushing sub-optimal candidates seems to be "aww, you sucked so bad, most likely your friends all suck, too -- so we might as well deter them from applying, also."