What is the difference between interview and discussion

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP





.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;







up vote
17
down vote

favorite












I applied for a job and they have invited me to their place for a discussion. They informed me there will be a technical discussion and a small project that I will have to do which is part of the assessment. They advised me the dress code is smart casual so I don't have to wear a shirt and tie.



I am preparing for this invitation as if it is an interview so I was wondering whether they could they mean it IS an interview. Or is there something else I should know about.



It is a small company.







share|improve this question


















  • 6




    It is an assessment of your technical skills as a part of the interview process.
    – paparazzo
    Jul 6 '15 at 14:27







  • 2




    They will evaluate you, that's all that matters, whether they call it technical interview or not doesn't matter. It's part of the process.
    – Formagella
    Jul 6 '15 at 14:28






  • 2




    "They advised me the dress code is smart casual" - huh? "Smart casual"? What is that?! Couldn't they just say to come casual ... they seem like hipsters to me!
    – Jack Twain
    Jul 6 '15 at 15:16






  • 5




    @JackTwain (Note, I am describing male clothing here) Casual-Casual is jeans, t-shirt and trainers/sneakers... Smart-Casual is usually no-jeans or shorts, presentable shirt/polo shirt, no tie, footwear somewhere between sneakers and formal work footwear...
    – Marv Mills
    Jul 6 '15 at 15:30






  • 3




    @PavelPetrman They may simply have got fed up with people either showing up in suits, or calling to ask what the dress code is, that they decided to explicitly say that interview suits are not required.
    – DJClayworth
    Jul 15 '15 at 21:45
















up vote
17
down vote

favorite












I applied for a job and they have invited me to their place for a discussion. They informed me there will be a technical discussion and a small project that I will have to do which is part of the assessment. They advised me the dress code is smart casual so I don't have to wear a shirt and tie.



I am preparing for this invitation as if it is an interview so I was wondering whether they could they mean it IS an interview. Or is there something else I should know about.



It is a small company.







share|improve this question


















  • 6




    It is an assessment of your technical skills as a part of the interview process.
    – paparazzo
    Jul 6 '15 at 14:27







  • 2




    They will evaluate you, that's all that matters, whether they call it technical interview or not doesn't matter. It's part of the process.
    – Formagella
    Jul 6 '15 at 14:28






  • 2




    "They advised me the dress code is smart casual" - huh? "Smart casual"? What is that?! Couldn't they just say to come casual ... they seem like hipsters to me!
    – Jack Twain
    Jul 6 '15 at 15:16






  • 5




    @JackTwain (Note, I am describing male clothing here) Casual-Casual is jeans, t-shirt and trainers/sneakers... Smart-Casual is usually no-jeans or shorts, presentable shirt/polo shirt, no tie, footwear somewhere between sneakers and formal work footwear...
    – Marv Mills
    Jul 6 '15 at 15:30






  • 3




    @PavelPetrman They may simply have got fed up with people either showing up in suits, or calling to ask what the dress code is, that they decided to explicitly say that interview suits are not required.
    – DJClayworth
    Jul 15 '15 at 21:45












up vote
17
down vote

favorite









up vote
17
down vote

favorite











I applied for a job and they have invited me to their place for a discussion. They informed me there will be a technical discussion and a small project that I will have to do which is part of the assessment. They advised me the dress code is smart casual so I don't have to wear a shirt and tie.



I am preparing for this invitation as if it is an interview so I was wondering whether they could they mean it IS an interview. Or is there something else I should know about.



It is a small company.







share|improve this question














I applied for a job and they have invited me to their place for a discussion. They informed me there will be a technical discussion and a small project that I will have to do which is part of the assessment. They advised me the dress code is smart casual so I don't have to wear a shirt and tie.



I am preparing for this invitation as if it is an interview so I was wondering whether they could they mean it IS an interview. Or is there something else I should know about.



It is a small company.









share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Jul 6 '15 at 17:54









Marv Mills

4,3831729




4,3831729










asked Jul 6 '15 at 14:13









Person

90115




90115







  • 6




    It is an assessment of your technical skills as a part of the interview process.
    – paparazzo
    Jul 6 '15 at 14:27







  • 2




    They will evaluate you, that's all that matters, whether they call it technical interview or not doesn't matter. It's part of the process.
    – Formagella
    Jul 6 '15 at 14:28






  • 2




    "They advised me the dress code is smart casual" - huh? "Smart casual"? What is that?! Couldn't they just say to come casual ... they seem like hipsters to me!
    – Jack Twain
    Jul 6 '15 at 15:16






  • 5




    @JackTwain (Note, I am describing male clothing here) Casual-Casual is jeans, t-shirt and trainers/sneakers... Smart-Casual is usually no-jeans or shorts, presentable shirt/polo shirt, no tie, footwear somewhere between sneakers and formal work footwear...
    – Marv Mills
    Jul 6 '15 at 15:30






  • 3




    @PavelPetrman They may simply have got fed up with people either showing up in suits, or calling to ask what the dress code is, that they decided to explicitly say that interview suits are not required.
    – DJClayworth
    Jul 15 '15 at 21:45












  • 6




    It is an assessment of your technical skills as a part of the interview process.
    – paparazzo
    Jul 6 '15 at 14:27







  • 2




    They will evaluate you, that's all that matters, whether they call it technical interview or not doesn't matter. It's part of the process.
    – Formagella
    Jul 6 '15 at 14:28






  • 2




    "They advised me the dress code is smart casual" - huh? "Smart casual"? What is that?! Couldn't they just say to come casual ... they seem like hipsters to me!
    – Jack Twain
    Jul 6 '15 at 15:16






  • 5




    @JackTwain (Note, I am describing male clothing here) Casual-Casual is jeans, t-shirt and trainers/sneakers... Smart-Casual is usually no-jeans or shorts, presentable shirt/polo shirt, no tie, footwear somewhere between sneakers and formal work footwear...
    – Marv Mills
    Jul 6 '15 at 15:30






  • 3




    @PavelPetrman They may simply have got fed up with people either showing up in suits, or calling to ask what the dress code is, that they decided to explicitly say that interview suits are not required.
    – DJClayworth
    Jul 15 '15 at 21:45







6




6




It is an assessment of your technical skills as a part of the interview process.
– paparazzo
Jul 6 '15 at 14:27





It is an assessment of your technical skills as a part of the interview process.
– paparazzo
Jul 6 '15 at 14:27





2




2




They will evaluate you, that's all that matters, whether they call it technical interview or not doesn't matter. It's part of the process.
– Formagella
Jul 6 '15 at 14:28




They will evaluate you, that's all that matters, whether they call it technical interview or not doesn't matter. It's part of the process.
– Formagella
Jul 6 '15 at 14:28




2




2




"They advised me the dress code is smart casual" - huh? "Smart casual"? What is that?! Couldn't they just say to come casual ... they seem like hipsters to me!
– Jack Twain
Jul 6 '15 at 15:16




"They advised me the dress code is smart casual" - huh? "Smart casual"? What is that?! Couldn't they just say to come casual ... they seem like hipsters to me!
– Jack Twain
Jul 6 '15 at 15:16




5




5




@JackTwain (Note, I am describing male clothing here) Casual-Casual is jeans, t-shirt and trainers/sneakers... Smart-Casual is usually no-jeans or shorts, presentable shirt/polo shirt, no tie, footwear somewhere between sneakers and formal work footwear...
– Marv Mills
Jul 6 '15 at 15:30




@JackTwain (Note, I am describing male clothing here) Casual-Casual is jeans, t-shirt and trainers/sneakers... Smart-Casual is usually no-jeans or shorts, presentable shirt/polo shirt, no tie, footwear somewhere between sneakers and formal work footwear...
– Marv Mills
Jul 6 '15 at 15:30




3




3




@PavelPetrman They may simply have got fed up with people either showing up in suits, or calling to ask what the dress code is, that they decided to explicitly say that interview suits are not required.
– DJClayworth
Jul 15 '15 at 21:45




@PavelPetrman They may simply have got fed up with people either showing up in suits, or calling to ask what the dress code is, that they decided to explicitly say that interview suits are not required.
– DJClayworth
Jul 15 '15 at 21:45










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
39
down vote



accepted










From your point of view there is no difference between an interview and a discussion.



Some companies, somewhat commendably, want to de-stress candidates who might be intimidated by the idea of an "interview", which implies a one-sided process in which you are being evaluated on a pass-fail basis. Therefore they frame their recruitment procedure as a 'discussion', in which you have a two-sided conversation in which you and they both decide whether you are suited for working there.



Unfortunately the bare fact is that the results for you are the same in each case. If the results of the 'discussion' is that they don't think you are suited to work at the company, you will not be invited to any more 'discussions' or offered a job.



(It's also true that you should be evaluating the company just as much as they are evaluating you, whether the process is called 'interview' or 'discussion').



You are completely correct to prepare for this in exactly the same way as an interview. There may be a slightly different tone to the 'discussions' than an interview - but then interviews can vary from the formal and stressful to informal and relaxed.






share|improve this answer






















  • thanks for your answer, confident, good communicator etc, that's what I am thinking. It's interesting from what Formagella mentions in regards to evaluation. I have seen various posts from Google results when it comes to assessing technical projects, assuming it will be technical.
    – Person
    Jul 6 '15 at 15:11










  • I'm not sure I like your characterization in the second paragraph.There are always two sides to every contract and either party can reject other's terms.Your bare fact statement seems to obviate the fact that if parties to negotiation dont form an evaluation of reciprocal inequality in the other party's consideration to their own benefit,there can be no contract.Ergo, if the "company" doesnt see a "supplier"s revenue product is commensurate with the consideration required to add that revenue product,the company must pass on the opportunity to form this contract; it's fundamental economics.
    – K. Alan Bates
    Jul 6 '15 at 17:48











  • As a matter of courtesy, I would make sure during this 'discussion' not to insist on calling it an interview though - for a business professional who is trying to frame this meeting as a discussion, they would most likely be offended if you try to 'correct' them.
    – Zibbobz
    Jul 6 '15 at 19:08

















up vote
3
down vote













The final five words of your question define what is going on here. In my view this is more than an interview, you are being invited to their company so they have the opportunity to see whether you will 'fit' in their organisation. And from a small business perspective, potential negative repercussions abound if they get this wrong. This is more pertinent in a small organisation where interpersonal dynamics hold greater potential of influencing group, departmental and organisational behaviours and outcomes.



Best outcome for these guys is to find someone who can do the job well in a professional and competent manner and whose personality, attitudes and behaviours are aligned with their individual/group and organisational ethos/ideology/game plan. Get it right, you will all be happy, get it wrong and the negative repercussions could be dire and go way beyond the individual. I am happy to provide links to research by organisational psych’s and others who study the complexities of the interaction between individuals and organisational structures/entities.



With respect to interview -v- discussion etc. although I agree in principle with much of what DJClayworth says above, my take on it is a tad different. I hope this provides an alternate way of looking at the situation.



The interview process generally involves a dynamic in which information sought and obtained is unidirectional and controlled by the more influential individual or group. This is set up so that they can engage in a well-informed and structured decision making process. The dominant features of this process are the rationality and objectivity, which underpin the elements of such an interactions. Seems they got that stuff sorted from your Application and CV.



In the moment they invited you to have a discussion with them the power differential shifted. The dynamic involved in conversing successfully requires that all parties actively listen and hear the view expressed by the other and respond in a considered and hopefully insightful manner. This is a process in which you will have to engage if you get the job. It is a process that relies on a natural connection and ability to communicate with relative ease whilst respecting the different individual roles and responsibilities in the organisation. This is not something that can be up-skilled later on, it's not about the individual its about what happens when a group of like minded people get together to work on a project and how that evolves.



Do you see the difference?? Do you understand why these people may want to 'get' who you are, what your underlying moral characteristics and behaviours are like and whether they can imagine working closely with you on various projects over a long per8od of time. You might also like to consider these things as you are chatting with them. In your mind, appraise whether they as individuals and their company ethos fits with you and how you want your work life to evolve. Remember, we spend more time at work and we attribute much of our sense of wellbeing to our successes (or not) in our professional life. Many define who they are by linking their sense of self to their occupation.



I hope the above makes some sense to you and that it provides some clarity for you - even if it comes from an 'out there' perspective.
Good luck!






share|improve this answer



























    up vote
    1
    down vote













    Well, if you don't pass the interview, then you don't get the job. How do you think you will come across as a prospective employee if you are not on the ball during the discussion? They probably want to know how you think and especially if you can think on your feet, how you react and they probably want to have some idea whether you are going to be an effective collaborator and member of the team. No pressure.






    share|improve this answer




















      Your Answer







      StackExchange.ready(function()
      var channelOptions =
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "423"
      ;
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
      createEditor();
      );

      else
      createEditor();

      );

      function createEditor()
      StackExchange.prepareEditor(
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      convertImagesToLinks: false,
      noModals: false,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: null,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      noCode: true, onDemand: false,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      );



      );








       

      draft saved


      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function ()
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworkplace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f49265%2fwhat-is-the-difference-between-interview-and-discussion%23new-answer', 'question_page');

      );

      Post as a guest

























      StackExchange.ready(function ()
      $("#show-editor-button input, #show-editor-button button").click(function ()
      var showEditor = function()
      $("#show-editor-button").hide();
      $("#post-form").removeClass("dno");
      StackExchange.editor.finallyInit();
      ;

      var useFancy = $(this).data('confirm-use-fancy');
      if(useFancy == 'True')
      var popupTitle = $(this).data('confirm-fancy-title');
      var popupBody = $(this).data('confirm-fancy-body');
      var popupAccept = $(this).data('confirm-fancy-accept-button');

      $(this).loadPopup(
      url: '/post/self-answer-popup',
      loaded: function(popup)
      var pTitle = $(popup).find('h2');
      var pBody = $(popup).find('.popup-body');
      var pSubmit = $(popup).find('.popup-submit');

      pTitle.text(popupTitle);
      pBody.html(popupBody);
      pSubmit.val(popupAccept).click(showEditor);

      )
      else
      var confirmText = $(this).data('confirm-text');
      if (confirmText ? confirm(confirmText) : true)
      showEditor();


      );
      );






      3 Answers
      3






      active

      oldest

      votes








      3 Answers
      3






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes








      up vote
      39
      down vote



      accepted










      From your point of view there is no difference between an interview and a discussion.



      Some companies, somewhat commendably, want to de-stress candidates who might be intimidated by the idea of an "interview", which implies a one-sided process in which you are being evaluated on a pass-fail basis. Therefore they frame their recruitment procedure as a 'discussion', in which you have a two-sided conversation in which you and they both decide whether you are suited for working there.



      Unfortunately the bare fact is that the results for you are the same in each case. If the results of the 'discussion' is that they don't think you are suited to work at the company, you will not be invited to any more 'discussions' or offered a job.



      (It's also true that you should be evaluating the company just as much as they are evaluating you, whether the process is called 'interview' or 'discussion').



      You are completely correct to prepare for this in exactly the same way as an interview. There may be a slightly different tone to the 'discussions' than an interview - but then interviews can vary from the formal and stressful to informal and relaxed.






      share|improve this answer






















      • thanks for your answer, confident, good communicator etc, that's what I am thinking. It's interesting from what Formagella mentions in regards to evaluation. I have seen various posts from Google results when it comes to assessing technical projects, assuming it will be technical.
        – Person
        Jul 6 '15 at 15:11










      • I'm not sure I like your characterization in the second paragraph.There are always two sides to every contract and either party can reject other's terms.Your bare fact statement seems to obviate the fact that if parties to negotiation dont form an evaluation of reciprocal inequality in the other party's consideration to their own benefit,there can be no contract.Ergo, if the "company" doesnt see a "supplier"s revenue product is commensurate with the consideration required to add that revenue product,the company must pass on the opportunity to form this contract; it's fundamental economics.
        – K. Alan Bates
        Jul 6 '15 at 17:48











      • As a matter of courtesy, I would make sure during this 'discussion' not to insist on calling it an interview though - for a business professional who is trying to frame this meeting as a discussion, they would most likely be offended if you try to 'correct' them.
        – Zibbobz
        Jul 6 '15 at 19:08














      up vote
      39
      down vote



      accepted










      From your point of view there is no difference between an interview and a discussion.



      Some companies, somewhat commendably, want to de-stress candidates who might be intimidated by the idea of an "interview", which implies a one-sided process in which you are being evaluated on a pass-fail basis. Therefore they frame their recruitment procedure as a 'discussion', in which you have a two-sided conversation in which you and they both decide whether you are suited for working there.



      Unfortunately the bare fact is that the results for you are the same in each case. If the results of the 'discussion' is that they don't think you are suited to work at the company, you will not be invited to any more 'discussions' or offered a job.



      (It's also true that you should be evaluating the company just as much as they are evaluating you, whether the process is called 'interview' or 'discussion').



      You are completely correct to prepare for this in exactly the same way as an interview. There may be a slightly different tone to the 'discussions' than an interview - but then interviews can vary from the formal and stressful to informal and relaxed.






      share|improve this answer






















      • thanks for your answer, confident, good communicator etc, that's what I am thinking. It's interesting from what Formagella mentions in regards to evaluation. I have seen various posts from Google results when it comes to assessing technical projects, assuming it will be technical.
        – Person
        Jul 6 '15 at 15:11










      • I'm not sure I like your characterization in the second paragraph.There are always two sides to every contract and either party can reject other's terms.Your bare fact statement seems to obviate the fact that if parties to negotiation dont form an evaluation of reciprocal inequality in the other party's consideration to their own benefit,there can be no contract.Ergo, if the "company" doesnt see a "supplier"s revenue product is commensurate with the consideration required to add that revenue product,the company must pass on the opportunity to form this contract; it's fundamental economics.
        – K. Alan Bates
        Jul 6 '15 at 17:48











      • As a matter of courtesy, I would make sure during this 'discussion' not to insist on calling it an interview though - for a business professional who is trying to frame this meeting as a discussion, they would most likely be offended if you try to 'correct' them.
        – Zibbobz
        Jul 6 '15 at 19:08












      up vote
      39
      down vote



      accepted







      up vote
      39
      down vote



      accepted






      From your point of view there is no difference between an interview and a discussion.



      Some companies, somewhat commendably, want to de-stress candidates who might be intimidated by the idea of an "interview", which implies a one-sided process in which you are being evaluated on a pass-fail basis. Therefore they frame their recruitment procedure as a 'discussion', in which you have a two-sided conversation in which you and they both decide whether you are suited for working there.



      Unfortunately the bare fact is that the results for you are the same in each case. If the results of the 'discussion' is that they don't think you are suited to work at the company, you will not be invited to any more 'discussions' or offered a job.



      (It's also true that you should be evaluating the company just as much as they are evaluating you, whether the process is called 'interview' or 'discussion').



      You are completely correct to prepare for this in exactly the same way as an interview. There may be a slightly different tone to the 'discussions' than an interview - but then interviews can vary from the formal and stressful to informal and relaxed.






      share|improve this answer














      From your point of view there is no difference between an interview and a discussion.



      Some companies, somewhat commendably, want to de-stress candidates who might be intimidated by the idea of an "interview", which implies a one-sided process in which you are being evaluated on a pass-fail basis. Therefore they frame their recruitment procedure as a 'discussion', in which you have a two-sided conversation in which you and they both decide whether you are suited for working there.



      Unfortunately the bare fact is that the results for you are the same in each case. If the results of the 'discussion' is that they don't think you are suited to work at the company, you will not be invited to any more 'discussions' or offered a job.



      (It's also true that you should be evaluating the company just as much as they are evaluating you, whether the process is called 'interview' or 'discussion').



      You are completely correct to prepare for this in exactly the same way as an interview. There may be a slightly different tone to the 'discussions' than an interview - but then interviews can vary from the formal and stressful to informal and relaxed.







      share|improve this answer














      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer








      edited Jul 15 '15 at 21:42

























      answered Jul 6 '15 at 14:41









      DJClayworth

      40.8k886146




      40.8k886146











      • thanks for your answer, confident, good communicator etc, that's what I am thinking. It's interesting from what Formagella mentions in regards to evaluation. I have seen various posts from Google results when it comes to assessing technical projects, assuming it will be technical.
        – Person
        Jul 6 '15 at 15:11










      • I'm not sure I like your characterization in the second paragraph.There are always two sides to every contract and either party can reject other's terms.Your bare fact statement seems to obviate the fact that if parties to negotiation dont form an evaluation of reciprocal inequality in the other party's consideration to their own benefit,there can be no contract.Ergo, if the "company" doesnt see a "supplier"s revenue product is commensurate with the consideration required to add that revenue product,the company must pass on the opportunity to form this contract; it's fundamental economics.
        – K. Alan Bates
        Jul 6 '15 at 17:48











      • As a matter of courtesy, I would make sure during this 'discussion' not to insist on calling it an interview though - for a business professional who is trying to frame this meeting as a discussion, they would most likely be offended if you try to 'correct' them.
        – Zibbobz
        Jul 6 '15 at 19:08
















      • thanks for your answer, confident, good communicator etc, that's what I am thinking. It's interesting from what Formagella mentions in regards to evaluation. I have seen various posts from Google results when it comes to assessing technical projects, assuming it will be technical.
        – Person
        Jul 6 '15 at 15:11










      • I'm not sure I like your characterization in the second paragraph.There are always two sides to every contract and either party can reject other's terms.Your bare fact statement seems to obviate the fact that if parties to negotiation dont form an evaluation of reciprocal inequality in the other party's consideration to their own benefit,there can be no contract.Ergo, if the "company" doesnt see a "supplier"s revenue product is commensurate with the consideration required to add that revenue product,the company must pass on the opportunity to form this contract; it's fundamental economics.
        – K. Alan Bates
        Jul 6 '15 at 17:48











      • As a matter of courtesy, I would make sure during this 'discussion' not to insist on calling it an interview though - for a business professional who is trying to frame this meeting as a discussion, they would most likely be offended if you try to 'correct' them.
        – Zibbobz
        Jul 6 '15 at 19:08















      thanks for your answer, confident, good communicator etc, that's what I am thinking. It's interesting from what Formagella mentions in regards to evaluation. I have seen various posts from Google results when it comes to assessing technical projects, assuming it will be technical.
      – Person
      Jul 6 '15 at 15:11




      thanks for your answer, confident, good communicator etc, that's what I am thinking. It's interesting from what Formagella mentions in regards to evaluation. I have seen various posts from Google results when it comes to assessing technical projects, assuming it will be technical.
      – Person
      Jul 6 '15 at 15:11












      I'm not sure I like your characterization in the second paragraph.There are always two sides to every contract and either party can reject other's terms.Your bare fact statement seems to obviate the fact that if parties to negotiation dont form an evaluation of reciprocal inequality in the other party's consideration to their own benefit,there can be no contract.Ergo, if the "company" doesnt see a "supplier"s revenue product is commensurate with the consideration required to add that revenue product,the company must pass on the opportunity to form this contract; it's fundamental economics.
      – K. Alan Bates
      Jul 6 '15 at 17:48





      I'm not sure I like your characterization in the second paragraph.There are always two sides to every contract and either party can reject other's terms.Your bare fact statement seems to obviate the fact that if parties to negotiation dont form an evaluation of reciprocal inequality in the other party's consideration to their own benefit,there can be no contract.Ergo, if the "company" doesnt see a "supplier"s revenue product is commensurate with the consideration required to add that revenue product,the company must pass on the opportunity to form this contract; it's fundamental economics.
      – K. Alan Bates
      Jul 6 '15 at 17:48













      As a matter of courtesy, I would make sure during this 'discussion' not to insist on calling it an interview though - for a business professional who is trying to frame this meeting as a discussion, they would most likely be offended if you try to 'correct' them.
      – Zibbobz
      Jul 6 '15 at 19:08




      As a matter of courtesy, I would make sure during this 'discussion' not to insist on calling it an interview though - for a business professional who is trying to frame this meeting as a discussion, they would most likely be offended if you try to 'correct' them.
      – Zibbobz
      Jul 6 '15 at 19:08












      up vote
      3
      down vote













      The final five words of your question define what is going on here. In my view this is more than an interview, you are being invited to their company so they have the opportunity to see whether you will 'fit' in their organisation. And from a small business perspective, potential negative repercussions abound if they get this wrong. This is more pertinent in a small organisation where interpersonal dynamics hold greater potential of influencing group, departmental and organisational behaviours and outcomes.



      Best outcome for these guys is to find someone who can do the job well in a professional and competent manner and whose personality, attitudes and behaviours are aligned with their individual/group and organisational ethos/ideology/game plan. Get it right, you will all be happy, get it wrong and the negative repercussions could be dire and go way beyond the individual. I am happy to provide links to research by organisational psych’s and others who study the complexities of the interaction between individuals and organisational structures/entities.



      With respect to interview -v- discussion etc. although I agree in principle with much of what DJClayworth says above, my take on it is a tad different. I hope this provides an alternate way of looking at the situation.



      The interview process generally involves a dynamic in which information sought and obtained is unidirectional and controlled by the more influential individual or group. This is set up so that they can engage in a well-informed and structured decision making process. The dominant features of this process are the rationality and objectivity, which underpin the elements of such an interactions. Seems they got that stuff sorted from your Application and CV.



      In the moment they invited you to have a discussion with them the power differential shifted. The dynamic involved in conversing successfully requires that all parties actively listen and hear the view expressed by the other and respond in a considered and hopefully insightful manner. This is a process in which you will have to engage if you get the job. It is a process that relies on a natural connection and ability to communicate with relative ease whilst respecting the different individual roles and responsibilities in the organisation. This is not something that can be up-skilled later on, it's not about the individual its about what happens when a group of like minded people get together to work on a project and how that evolves.



      Do you see the difference?? Do you understand why these people may want to 'get' who you are, what your underlying moral characteristics and behaviours are like and whether they can imagine working closely with you on various projects over a long per8od of time. You might also like to consider these things as you are chatting with them. In your mind, appraise whether they as individuals and their company ethos fits with you and how you want your work life to evolve. Remember, we spend more time at work and we attribute much of our sense of wellbeing to our successes (or not) in our professional life. Many define who they are by linking their sense of self to their occupation.



      I hope the above makes some sense to you and that it provides some clarity for you - even if it comes from an 'out there' perspective.
      Good luck!






      share|improve this answer
























        up vote
        3
        down vote













        The final five words of your question define what is going on here. In my view this is more than an interview, you are being invited to their company so they have the opportunity to see whether you will 'fit' in their organisation. And from a small business perspective, potential negative repercussions abound if they get this wrong. This is more pertinent in a small organisation where interpersonal dynamics hold greater potential of influencing group, departmental and organisational behaviours and outcomes.



        Best outcome for these guys is to find someone who can do the job well in a professional and competent manner and whose personality, attitudes and behaviours are aligned with their individual/group and organisational ethos/ideology/game plan. Get it right, you will all be happy, get it wrong and the negative repercussions could be dire and go way beyond the individual. I am happy to provide links to research by organisational psych’s and others who study the complexities of the interaction between individuals and organisational structures/entities.



        With respect to interview -v- discussion etc. although I agree in principle with much of what DJClayworth says above, my take on it is a tad different. I hope this provides an alternate way of looking at the situation.



        The interview process generally involves a dynamic in which information sought and obtained is unidirectional and controlled by the more influential individual or group. This is set up so that they can engage in a well-informed and structured decision making process. The dominant features of this process are the rationality and objectivity, which underpin the elements of such an interactions. Seems they got that stuff sorted from your Application and CV.



        In the moment they invited you to have a discussion with them the power differential shifted. The dynamic involved in conversing successfully requires that all parties actively listen and hear the view expressed by the other and respond in a considered and hopefully insightful manner. This is a process in which you will have to engage if you get the job. It is a process that relies on a natural connection and ability to communicate with relative ease whilst respecting the different individual roles and responsibilities in the organisation. This is not something that can be up-skilled later on, it's not about the individual its about what happens when a group of like minded people get together to work on a project and how that evolves.



        Do you see the difference?? Do you understand why these people may want to 'get' who you are, what your underlying moral characteristics and behaviours are like and whether they can imagine working closely with you on various projects over a long per8od of time. You might also like to consider these things as you are chatting with them. In your mind, appraise whether they as individuals and their company ethos fits with you and how you want your work life to evolve. Remember, we spend more time at work and we attribute much of our sense of wellbeing to our successes (or not) in our professional life. Many define who they are by linking their sense of self to their occupation.



        I hope the above makes some sense to you and that it provides some clarity for you - even if it comes from an 'out there' perspective.
        Good luck!






        share|improve this answer






















          up vote
          3
          down vote










          up vote
          3
          down vote









          The final five words of your question define what is going on here. In my view this is more than an interview, you are being invited to their company so they have the opportunity to see whether you will 'fit' in their organisation. And from a small business perspective, potential negative repercussions abound if they get this wrong. This is more pertinent in a small organisation where interpersonal dynamics hold greater potential of influencing group, departmental and organisational behaviours and outcomes.



          Best outcome for these guys is to find someone who can do the job well in a professional and competent manner and whose personality, attitudes and behaviours are aligned with their individual/group and organisational ethos/ideology/game plan. Get it right, you will all be happy, get it wrong and the negative repercussions could be dire and go way beyond the individual. I am happy to provide links to research by organisational psych’s and others who study the complexities of the interaction between individuals and organisational structures/entities.



          With respect to interview -v- discussion etc. although I agree in principle with much of what DJClayworth says above, my take on it is a tad different. I hope this provides an alternate way of looking at the situation.



          The interview process generally involves a dynamic in which information sought and obtained is unidirectional and controlled by the more influential individual or group. This is set up so that they can engage in a well-informed and structured decision making process. The dominant features of this process are the rationality and objectivity, which underpin the elements of such an interactions. Seems they got that stuff sorted from your Application and CV.



          In the moment they invited you to have a discussion with them the power differential shifted. The dynamic involved in conversing successfully requires that all parties actively listen and hear the view expressed by the other and respond in a considered and hopefully insightful manner. This is a process in which you will have to engage if you get the job. It is a process that relies on a natural connection and ability to communicate with relative ease whilst respecting the different individual roles and responsibilities in the organisation. This is not something that can be up-skilled later on, it's not about the individual its about what happens when a group of like minded people get together to work on a project and how that evolves.



          Do you see the difference?? Do you understand why these people may want to 'get' who you are, what your underlying moral characteristics and behaviours are like and whether they can imagine working closely with you on various projects over a long per8od of time. You might also like to consider these things as you are chatting with them. In your mind, appraise whether they as individuals and their company ethos fits with you and how you want your work life to evolve. Remember, we spend more time at work and we attribute much of our sense of wellbeing to our successes (or not) in our professional life. Many define who they are by linking their sense of self to their occupation.



          I hope the above makes some sense to you and that it provides some clarity for you - even if it comes from an 'out there' perspective.
          Good luck!






          share|improve this answer












          The final five words of your question define what is going on here. In my view this is more than an interview, you are being invited to their company so they have the opportunity to see whether you will 'fit' in their organisation. And from a small business perspective, potential negative repercussions abound if they get this wrong. This is more pertinent in a small organisation where interpersonal dynamics hold greater potential of influencing group, departmental and organisational behaviours and outcomes.



          Best outcome for these guys is to find someone who can do the job well in a professional and competent manner and whose personality, attitudes and behaviours are aligned with their individual/group and organisational ethos/ideology/game plan. Get it right, you will all be happy, get it wrong and the negative repercussions could be dire and go way beyond the individual. I am happy to provide links to research by organisational psych’s and others who study the complexities of the interaction between individuals and organisational structures/entities.



          With respect to interview -v- discussion etc. although I agree in principle with much of what DJClayworth says above, my take on it is a tad different. I hope this provides an alternate way of looking at the situation.



          The interview process generally involves a dynamic in which information sought and obtained is unidirectional and controlled by the more influential individual or group. This is set up so that they can engage in a well-informed and structured decision making process. The dominant features of this process are the rationality and objectivity, which underpin the elements of such an interactions. Seems they got that stuff sorted from your Application and CV.



          In the moment they invited you to have a discussion with them the power differential shifted. The dynamic involved in conversing successfully requires that all parties actively listen and hear the view expressed by the other and respond in a considered and hopefully insightful manner. This is a process in which you will have to engage if you get the job. It is a process that relies on a natural connection and ability to communicate with relative ease whilst respecting the different individual roles and responsibilities in the organisation. This is not something that can be up-skilled later on, it's not about the individual its about what happens when a group of like minded people get together to work on a project and how that evolves.



          Do you see the difference?? Do you understand why these people may want to 'get' who you are, what your underlying moral characteristics and behaviours are like and whether they can imagine working closely with you on various projects over a long per8od of time. You might also like to consider these things as you are chatting with them. In your mind, appraise whether they as individuals and their company ethos fits with you and how you want your work life to evolve. Remember, we spend more time at work and we attribute much of our sense of wellbeing to our successes (or not) in our professional life. Many define who they are by linking their sense of self to their occupation.



          I hope the above makes some sense to you and that it provides some clarity for you - even if it comes from an 'out there' perspective.
          Good luck!







          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered Jul 6 '15 at 21:38









          drcrpsych

          312




          312




















              up vote
              1
              down vote













              Well, if you don't pass the interview, then you don't get the job. How do you think you will come across as a prospective employee if you are not on the ball during the discussion? They probably want to know how you think and especially if you can think on your feet, how you react and they probably want to have some idea whether you are going to be an effective collaborator and member of the team. No pressure.






              share|improve this answer
























                up vote
                1
                down vote













                Well, if you don't pass the interview, then you don't get the job. How do you think you will come across as a prospective employee if you are not on the ball during the discussion? They probably want to know how you think and especially if you can think on your feet, how you react and they probably want to have some idea whether you are going to be an effective collaborator and member of the team. No pressure.






                share|improve this answer






















                  up vote
                  1
                  down vote










                  up vote
                  1
                  down vote









                  Well, if you don't pass the interview, then you don't get the job. How do you think you will come across as a prospective employee if you are not on the ball during the discussion? They probably want to know how you think and especially if you can think on your feet, how you react and they probably want to have some idea whether you are going to be an effective collaborator and member of the team. No pressure.






                  share|improve this answer












                  Well, if you don't pass the interview, then you don't get the job. How do you think you will come across as a prospective employee if you are not on the ball during the discussion? They probably want to know how you think and especially if you can think on your feet, how you react and they probably want to have some idea whether you are going to be an effective collaborator and member of the team. No pressure.







                  share|improve this answer












                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer










                  answered Jul 6 '15 at 14:41









                  Vietnhi Phuvan

                  68.9k7118254




                  68.9k7118254






















                       

                      draft saved


                      draft discarded


























                       


                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function ()
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworkplace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f49265%2fwhat-is-the-difference-between-interview-and-discussion%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                      );

                      Post as a guest

















































































                      Comments

                      Popular posts from this blog

                      What does second last employer means? [closed]

                      Installing NextGIS Connect into QGIS 3?

                      One-line joke