I am not a fan of using "performative enthusiasm about the job/company" to evaluate interview performance. Many enthusiastic candidates will fail to display it legibly in interview format. Conversely, trivial to "fake it" for 40 minutes if known to be on rubric.
-
-
I am quite capable of geeking out about things. My performance of "geeking out" occupies a particular range of behaviors which are roughly appropriate for a particular social class / grouping in the US. They're also gendered as heck.
Show this thread -
I am also capable of performing "Japanese salaryman enthusiasm" and if I dialed that to 8 out of 10 almost no US interviewers would score me as passing the enthusiasm hurdle. I'd have to dial it to a parody range for it to be detectable as enthusiasm.
Show this thread -
There are many Japanese salaryman who did not also choose to subclass in American geek, so if you have enthusiasm as a criteria, you're likely to false negative them given interviewer pool. At risk of stating obvious: Japanese salarymen are not the only group this applies to.
Show this thread -
Salaryman enthusiasm? Oh, you know - I'd say almost nothing during the interview. I'd agree with substantially everything you said, mostly monosyllabic answers. I'd nod a bit - not too much - and dial formality to 11. What, Americans do enthusiasm differently? How do you do it?
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Do you think this looks the same for "intellectual engagement" vs "enthusiasm"? (Leaving aside the reputed non predictive nature of interviews at all.)
-
I wonder about type I/II error, too: what are the relative odds of "you're engaged and I didn't notice" versus "you're not engaged, and I didn't notice you faking it".
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.