If someone’s question was “what did you have for lunch?” and they asked with a smile, I would laugh out loud and then tell them about my lunch, and probably write something like “likeable candidate, has good people skills,” in my review.
It does depend on the context. If it was asked in the context of a casual conversation, say in between sessions -- it's ok.
But when I, the interviewer, am asking "do you have any questions for me?" during an interview, I invariably mean it in a professional context. Answering with "what did you have for lunch?" seems to cross the professionalism line somewhat (why the hell do you need to know what I ate?), and may not be appreciated by many. I wouldn't go as far as to outright dismiss the candidate's viability, but for me personally, it's comes across as weird and non-self-aware rather than funny.
(also, as someone who watches a lot of stand-up, I also have a high threshold for humor -- I'm kinda of a humor snob. I like light-heartedness, but contrived failed attempts at humor are grating to me because they often indicate someone's trying too hard. There's an inauthenticity there that rubs me the wrong way.)
So even if you're right, the trouble is an interviewee might not be able to tell a priori if they got someone like you or someone like me. So it's risky.
(otoh, "what are some good lunch spots around here, in your opinion?", mentioned by another commenter, is almost always positive and indicates a candidate's interest in the workplace environment)
You can already see from the comments on this thread that there are strong opinions on both sides of this -- it's not a consensus. Flippant questions are a gamble is all I'm saying.
p.s. that said, if it were me, I'd treat it as a minor irritation and move on unless the candidate demonstrates a pattern of a lack of seriousness about the interview. It's one thing to be relaxed and casual, but not taking the interview seriously is not a good look.
Also if a company is extremely casual and everyone is in jeans and hoodies, ignore what I said in this entire thread. It doesn't apply.
This stuff really does work, I don’t really need it now because i generally find roles through my network.
Is any interviewer really going to tell you the politics are awful, or managers are overbearing? They'll probably give a typical non-answer like "the food is so good you can't help but put on weight".
Candidates do this also when asked their worst traits - it doesn't work.
When I'm interviewing someone and they ask this, I try to answer honestly, although I think it's human nature to still try to put a positive spin on it because a) I work here and there's some element of post purchase rationalization, for want of a better term and b) if they're a good candidate I want to sell them on working with us.
However there are forces in the other direction - it's not in my interest to deceive a candidate into a role that doesn't fit them if they're going to leave when they inevitably find out, or if they're going to be demotivated as a result. I have a vested interest in this being a good fit from both sides.
I also want to give candidates a great experience - we're a small company and not many people have heard of us. Word of mouth is the most powerful recruitment tool we have, in many respects.
To some extent this only works because I genuinely love the place I work and so the bad things I talk about genuinely aren't that bad (I would call them tradeoffs rather than things everyone would consider super negative).
On the other hand, definitely on the candidate to gauge whether the person they're asking is a total curmudgeon or not before asking.
So maybe your good people skills, likeable candidate = "hey, charisma", which depending on what you're interviewing people for gets you those mythical guys who can't code.
But if the most charismatic person out there interviews for an engineering job and can’t code, that debrief would take two seconds, and sound like, “Man, X sure was nice, too bad they can’t do the job.”
on edit: assuming the people are not mythical, although I certainly have known people who could not code well enough to have it be worthwhile having them code, which is I guess a slightly different thing.
As an engineer, I've run at least that many engineers. I don't like it when we go off script, because it's hard to compare with previous candidates.
However, candidate question time is for the candidate to gather information, not for me. It's best for everyone if a candidate gets the information they need to decide they'll dislike the job/environment during the interview rather than during the first week.
Wow. Meep, zorp, hire me. The beauty of this section of the interview (as someone who also has done countless of these numbing, repetitive 'script' interviews), that it allows for candidates to be tiny bit unrestrained. Go on, ask whatever you think is important. Or funny. Or something that can give you insight into this job you're tyna get into. That's the part where you can actually differentiate between robots who memorized answers (whatever answer they might be) and people who are actually interesting that YOU, and your team, would find pleasant to work with.
Not saying this is you necessarily, but your post makes me think of certain friends I’ve had over the years who are very introverted and can be very salty about extroverted and/or “charismatic” people. They tend to judge people who are friendly and outgoing as being vapid or shallow - thinking, I suppose, that if they were deep thinkers, they too would be quiet and not care about social niceties.
I think that’s a really dangerous mental trap to fall into. It is perfectly possible to be both brilliant and charismatic. It is also very possible to learn and improve “people skills,” just as you can learn anything else. Thinking otherwise can lead to badly underestimating or misunderstanding others, and limiting ones self.
Interviews are the opportunity to meet an interesting person, learn about them, talk about their interests, and sell them on the chance to work at your company.
How could that be boring and repetitive?
You also know that, when people are thinking through a challenging problem in a stressful situation, they mostly won't want to engage in small talk at the same time. Although you can give them hints and ask questions at appropriate times.
It's easy enough to imagine how that could get tiresome, once you've done enough that no solution or mistake is new to you.
And all of that is a great way to introduce a ton of unconscious bias into your interviewing process. You should be spending your time in the interview focusing on determining if the candidate meets the requirements to do the job. Being interesting, having interests you find interesting, etc. are presumably not requirements for the position you're interviewing them for. When you find out they have (or do not have) shared interests with you, as a human being, you're wired introduce bias into your decision making process, whether you intend to or not.
Interviews SHOULD be boring in the repetitive sense. The interview should be tailored to the position, and not the person you're interviewing.
> Interviews SHOULD be boring in the repetitive sense
Repetitive isn’t boring. I believe it’s very possible (essential) for a good interviewer to see the difference.
But your point is valid in the sense that, as an interviewer, I do try to bring energy and interest to each interview, both because it’s what the candidate deserves and it’s better for me too.
And to be clear, most interviews are interesting and enjoyable, even the sessions I’ve done a hundred times. But, just being realistic, neither I nor the candidates are always on our A game, and sometimes the result is a quiet and dull interview.
And to be clear, that may still result in an offer recommendation! Some of these interviews are dry because the candidate knows the material down pat, doesn’t want to chit chat, and has no questions. Those are, in fact, the very kind of person I imagine would improve their performance by smiling and asking what I had for lunch :)
What an insane thing to say. As if on top of everything else, you also want us to entertain you? Does anybody really believe someone would laugh at that?
Just to make sure you see it I’m copying some things I wrote to other replies:
1. Charisma is a plus, but how much depends on the role, and for most roles it’s not going to matter.
2. To be clear, most interviews are interesting and enjoyable, even the sessions I’ve done a hundred times. But, just being realistic, neither I nor the candidates are always on our A game, and sometimes the result is a quiet and dull interview. And to be clear, that may still result in an offer recommendation! Some of these interviews are dry because the candidate knows the material down pat, doesn’t want to chit chat, and has no questions. Those are, in fact, the very kind of person I imagine would improve their performance by smiling and asking what I had for lunch :)
I don't know why commenting and replying has to necessarily be so hostile and adversarial.