Companies often require in-person meetings as the final stage of the interview process even for remote jobs. If you have received such an invitation — congratulations! You’ve successfully navigated the challenging video interviews and perhaps even completed coding tests. The company is eager to meet you in person, which seems like a good reason to pop the corks…
However, it’s important to remain grounded and understand that this invitation doesn’t guarantee a job offer (barring gross mistakes in your in-person meeting). If you don’t mind the corny comparison: Rushing into an on-site meeting with high hopes of receiving a job offer is akin to having sex with someone and expecting a committed relationship afterwards. In reality, the other party may have already decided you’re not the best suitable long-term match but still enjoys your company until they find someone who fits their ideal (or the ideal person finally comes around). Countless tears have been shed by those who didn’t dare ask about the other party’s intentions first.
Similarly, companies often invite second or third choice candidates to on-site meetings to exercise due diligence. If their top candidate rejects the offer, requests too high a salary, or in the unlikely case they turn out to be unfit for the role in the in-person meeting, they have you as a ready back-up. If management doesn’t want to pay a high salary for the top candidate, they can say they thoroughly interviewed someone else (you) and that really only the other candidate fulfils their requirements. Investing a couple of hours in meeting you and covering your transportation and accommodation costs is a minor expense for even a medium-sized company to exercise what on their part seems “reasonable care”.
But isn’t this reckless or even exploitative towards you, you might wonder. You might forgo other job opportunities, take time to prepare and travel, have to time off from your current job, and pay some travel expenses at least.
Outside of the business world, this type of behaviour is often rightfully criticised as “using someone” or “lying by omission.” Within the professional context, it is simply called “prospect meeting”. After all, there’s an ever so slim chance that you’d convince them of being the better candidate in person. Entertaining this idea is certainly delusional on their part. But it serves as a convenient justification for having you invest your time and energy when they’re already aware that you’re not their favourite candidate.
Always test their “yes” to you first
People who have been self-employed for a long time know to protect their interests from prospective buyers who are just shopping around or exercising due diligence. Job candidates need to learn this too. So, when you receive that email inviting you to an on-site meeting, don’t let excitement cloud your judgment. Pick up the phone or write an email to inquire about the reasons behind their decision, expressing your genuine gratitude and enthusiasm:
I’m truly honoured to be considered for this opportunity! With so many talented and experienced candidates having applied, I’m curious to learn: Why did you choose to invite me?
This is known as a “proof of life” question and it will help you determine if you truly have a chance to get the job. If they struggle to identify any of your qualities and instead offer a vague response such as “we only invite the best candidates” or evade the question by replying “You tell us!”, you might want to reconsider your investment in this opportunity. Obviously they are “not that into you” and stringing you along for purposes other than hiring you.
However, if they respond with an enthusiastic, detailed account of your impressive attributes — they have studied your CV, looked at your code samples, read your blog articles, and are excited about working together — they support your candidacy and can envision you working for them. In such cases, follow up with:
It seems like you have a good reason for conducting this meeting in person?
And here you usually get one or both of the following replies:
They need you to complete a test on-site or to do “trial work”
Quite a few companies still insist on on-site tests probably fearing applicants might use AI to complete at-home challenges. While it’s commendable that companies want to ensure a fair hiring process, their perception of the risk of being tricked by applicants is outsized since most jurisdictions allow employers to terminate employment during the initial probationary period without providing a reason and without any notice period.
To these companies I’m also going to say this: If candidates can successfully complete your test by copy-pasting the task into ChatGPT, it’s time to re-assess your test design. Conversely, if a candidate manages to write prompts for ChatGPT to solve a complex problem, it demonstrates a level of proficiency probably sufficient for the role you seek to fill. Any post-test feedback session would also likely expose an applicant who submitted a solution without fully understanding it.
Some companies also require applicants to complete a task with their real codebase and this has to happen on-site for security reasons. But can a candidate actually navigate and even contribute to a system they’ve never seen before meaningfully with a couple of hours? I don’t think so.
Ultimately, when companies exhibit excessive paranoia about being deceived by applicants, you have to wonder what’s really going on with them. “The fox always smells its own hole first.”
My advice when faced with a request to complete an on-site test? Politely decline. You deserve to work in an environment where your skills are trusted and valued, and where suspicion doesn’t hang heavy in the air (or you’re the one being tricked eventually).
We want to create proximity
“Getting to know each other” and “meeting the team” are often stated as most important reasons to meet in person. So far you only know each other as flat 2d representations in “BBC newsreader” format from video calls. While deep-faking your entire appearance is probably not a concern (yet), having the opportunity to see and a real, 3d human, shake their hand, and look into their eyes during a conversation still feels more “genuine” and invested than anyone’s screen presence.
These phrases hence imply a desire for deeper connection, which might lead you to erroneously believe that they are fairly convinced you’re the ideal candidate. But please remember how there can be various motivations behind such invitations. At this point it’s really crucial to not get swept away by the warm, fuzzy feeling of being desirable and to test their “yes” to you a second time by applying either a label or a mislabel:
It seems like you’re satisfied my skills and experience fulfil your requirements?
or
It seems you still have doubts about me being a good fit for the role?
If you hear doubt or concerns in response to either of these questions, ask the company if they are against you addressing these with the team lead or line manager in another call before deciding about the in-person meeting.
Final words
If all of this makes you concerned about coming across as awkward or less than agreeable, remember that as long as your questions are asked with a friendly, curious tone, the company should be happy to answer them. A good employer would also be empathetic to the fact that as an individual, you are in a weaker position.
There is also your emotional investment to consider: You are a human being who naturally develops emotional attachments to exciting prospects, whether that’s a job opportunity or a potential romantic partner. Being abruptly returned to square one, after you had already imagined a new possible future for you, is a painful and demoralising experience, and even more so, if you are currently out of work.
Not long ago I interviewed with a company for an engineer role and we clicked immediately. When I asked why they had chosen to talk to me, I was dazzled by their appreciation for my skills: Not only did they like my experience with domain-driven design; they also valued certain qualifications and experiences others had always overlooked. The contrary, the friendly and approachable nature of our video calls quickly transformed them into interesting technical discussions. I felt I had found “my tribe”. When I received their invitation to an on-site meeting hundreds of kilometres away from home to “get to know each other”, I felt confident in their interest — and forgot to double-check their interest with a final label or mislabel.
The team I met on site was welcoming, easy-going, and as appreciating as during the video calls. They gave me a tour of their entire facilities and a female team member even expressed excitement at the prospect of having another woman on the team, as if my working with them was already a done deal. Still my gut feeling said no, and lo and behold, two days later they rejected my application citing my lack of DevOps experience with a particular tool as the reason. Not much later the job posting went offline.
I was shocked. I had applied for a software engineer position at a medium-sized company you would reasonably expect to have dedicated DevOps people. They had never brought DevOps up at all during the video calls. They had also been aware of my experience (or lack thereof) prior to our on-site meeting as it’s obvious from my CV and discussed previous work. I had been assured the on-site meeting wasn’t a test or another interview but a “getting-to-know” type of meeting on two occasions.
This demonstrates that at least one decision-maker had reservations about my candidacy from the outset. Had I tested their commitment more than once before investing my time, money, and emotional energy, I could have avoided the huge disappointment this ensued.
So let this be a cautionary tale to you — always thoroughly verify the company’s genuine support for your candidacy before jumping on the plane or train to travel to an on-site meeting. Your time and well-being is valuable and you deserve a fair process.
…and if you’re interested in taking the “testing yes” approach even further in your interviews, have a look at “Are you the favourite or the fool?” by former hostage negotiator Derek Gaunt.