64

Summary: during technical zoom-based interview I looked around while thinking for answer. My interviewer commented that maybe I am looking for answer online. I showed them that there is nobody else in the room. I passed the exam but feel like I've been accused of cheating and don't want to work for the company enymore.

I was accused of cheating during a technical video interview in a well-known company. When the interviewer asked me questions, I was taking a moment to think, and looking up and down to think, and not directly facing the camera. This happened for 2-3 questions. I usually look up or down and talk to myself when I am trying to think about the answers.

The interviewer told me, I don't know why you're looking up/down and sideways, and I am not sure if you're looking at answers on the Internet, materials, notes, etc. I composed myself and turned around my camera to show him there's nothing in front/back/sides of my laptop and told him this is my thinking process when I usually think about a problem at hand.

Later, I received an email from the HR that I passed the interview, and that they liked my skills and would like to interview for the next round. I am kind of bummed out that the interviewer accused me of cheating. Should I go/not go-ahead with the next interview? How do I decline and pass the message to the HR that I am not interested in proceeding forward?

Edit: I interview with a different team than when this post was created. I successfully passed the interview, and currently discussing the offer. The team really liked my skills. Thank you for everyone for your inputs, it gave me a new perspective and a new opportunity.

Neo
  • 995
  • 1
  • 5
  • 8
  • 1
    Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. – Lilienthal Dec 08 '21 at 18:45
  • 4
    I don't think anyone has actually answered the question "How do I decline and pass the message to the HR that I am not interested in proceeding forward?" If that is, indeed what Neo chooses, what is the best way for him to do so, with as little collateral damage to him as possible? – CGCampbell Dec 09 '21 at 16:14
  • Thank you for telling us how the story ended. It's very common for people to be curious about this and I always appreciate when someone updates and tells the ending. – msouth Sep 13 '22 at 20:06

11 Answers11

242

You weren't accused of cheating. Your interviewer clarified something they noticed about you and then passed you. It is a totally normal and satisfactory result. There is no need to take this any further.

Peter Mortensen
  • 1,003
  • 1
  • 8
  • 8
Kilisi
  • 222,118
  • 122
  • 486
  • 793
  • 63
    Of course he was accused of cheating. The OP even had to use his webcam to show that there weren't any cheat materials around. – DaveG Dec 06 '21 at 20:59
  • 100
    No, he was not accused. The interviewer said he sees signs that indicate OP may be cheating. If OP had truly been accused of cheating, there is no way he would have passed the interview. – corsiKa Dec 07 '21 at 20:31
  • 4
    @DaveG Might've been classic miscommunication. – Mast Dec 07 '21 at 21:39
  • 58
    Saying this isn't an accusation is like saying a mob boss telling a hitman to "take care of" someone isn't ordering a hit. Or maybe you take "accuse" to exclusively mean a formal accusation on the record, rather than considering there's also a definition which is just: a claim that someone did something wrong. I don't think the accusation is (necessarily) a red flag, but it's definitely an accusation. – NotThatGuy Dec 07 '21 at 22:55
  • 41
    Some people would say this and very truly not be accusing the OP of anything - they would just be stating their observation. Other people might say this as an indirect way of more or less accusing them. And some individuals may easily go either way, depending on the occasion. It can depend on the interviewer's personality and/or their background. This is why the comments (and their upvotes) are so divided here. However I think Kilisi's answer applies in this situation. – Panzercrisis Dec 08 '21 at 04:17
  • 30
    In a proctored exam taking place in an on-site location, a proctor might scrutinize what a test-taker was doing - if their movements seemed unusual - to rule out cheating. This would happen prior to an actual accusation of cheating. Since this test was not on-site, the method of proctoring is naturally going to be somewhat different. Asking someone what they are doing is, in the context of a test supervised by video, the functional equivalent of merely watching and observing them in person. – tbrookside Dec 08 '21 at 12:07
  • 10
    @corsiKa "I don't know why you're looking up/down and sideways" and "I am not sure if" are clearly not accusations. Accusations would be "I know you're looking up/down and sideways because you're looking at answers/notes etc". – terdon Dec 08 '21 at 13:04
  • @terdon It's completely irelevant is it an accusation or not, the point is that the interviewer showed lack of trust in the candidate. If you accuse someone of cheating, or clearly state you think they might be, both of these will trigger the same emotional response from the other side. As for the OP, interviews are usually much harder than the actual job, and you will probably not be working with that person in the same team, assuming it was not an interview for a HR position. But it was really stupid to expect someone to look straight at the display 100% of the time. – Chapz Dec 09 '21 at 07:57
  • 1
    @corsiKa I would be offended to the point of dropping that employer. I mean, clearly the OP was overperforming the norm (nobody cheats to give bad answers). If the interviewer had two functioning brain cells, he would write it down as a follow up point, and then do some spot checking at a face to face interview later. – Stian Dec 09 '21 at 11:08
  • 4
    @StianYttervik many employers would consider that a bullet dodged. Employees with paper thin skin are not as much of an asset and can quickly become serious liabilities.. – Kilisi Dec 09 '21 at 11:47
  • 1
    @Kilisi True, but it goes both ways. Now, usually the interviewer is not necessarily tied to the company, and that is something you have to factor in - but, if it was an internal recruiter: Are they concerned about people cheating? That tells alot about their current problems and their outlook on HR. HR is done best proactively. treat, reward and develop people so they become good. Don't sheperd them after you failed doing that. But yeah, I am not entirely deaf to what you are saying. – Stian Dec 09 '21 at 12:30
  • 2
    I wouldn't call this accusing, but rather "It looks like your cheating, because I observe behaviour that I associate with cheating. Could you please clarify that you aren't? Just checkin'." – MC Emperor Dec 09 '21 at 16:09
  • 1
    @StianYttervik Well, if you're offended, that's fine. I personally like the idea of not beating around the bush. For the record, there is no defined standard of cheating in an interview. Let's consider the fact that if someone was "cheating" they clearly had the sense of mind to prepare those materials. If someone told me "I had a feeling you'd ask about these topics and I wanted to be prepared" I wouldn't stop the interview. – corsiKa Dec 09 '21 at 17:05
  • 1
    I think there is a big cultural aspect involved in assessing this "accusation". If I come for an interview to a company and they ask for my ID card, are they accusing me of identity fraud? Do they not believe me saying who I am? Or are they just applying due diligence. - For my part by talking to you and clearing this up on the spot, they did you a favor instead of reporting to HR "candidate was looking up and down before answering, I don't know why" – Falco Dec 10 '21 at 14:48
89

You're overthinking it.

A pre-recorded interview has the advantage that it can be reviewed. If you were flagged for cheating, but then got notified that you passed, then someone higher up thought otherwise and simply chalked the interviewer to inexperience.

Go ahead and keep going with the interview. I've been accused of cheating plenty of times due to the sheer speed of how fast I did tests, and I told them that if I was cheating, the last thing I would do is hand in the paper first, because the professor will be looking at it right away and will remember me.

Nelson
  • 13,688
  • 6
  • 34
  • 52
  • 29
    When they accuse you (or your younger relatives) of cheating, you should always say. "Fine, you can test me on the whiteboard with brand new questions, but if I do well, I want a recommendation letter (or I want an internship, or I want a pizza for the class)". Never let such an opportunity go to waste. And never trade something for nothing. – Stephan Branczyk Dec 06 '21 at 05:31
  • 47
    @StephanBranczyk I wouldn't. That sort of smart-ass attitude is the sort of thing that could lose you a job offer. – nick012000 Dec 08 '21 at 11:51
  • 9
    @StephanBranczyk Not much of a position to negotiate from, I don't see why anyone would agree to that - the person who thinks you cheated can just decline your terms, in which case you have no recommendation letter, no pizza, and are still viewed as a cheater. To make this deal palatable, you need to buy them a pizza if you fail. – Nuclear Hoagie Dec 08 '21 at 14:46
  • 4
    @nick012000 - or win you one. Depends how you play it and what they're like – Stilez Dec 08 '21 at 20:33
  • Of course, if the professor thinks "there's no way the first person to hand their work in would be a cheater, since no cheater would want to draw attention to themselves, so I'd better be extra careful checking the work of the people handing in their work later"... – Vikki Dec 08 '21 at 22:04
  • @nick012000, JUST TO CLARIFY! I was not talking about doing this during a job interview. Not at all! I was only referring to the specific example Nelson brought up. I'm sorry, my comment wasn't clearer to begin with. Also in a classroom, I would only suggest one does this if the student did nothing else suspicious, but finish early. – Stephan Branczyk Dec 08 '21 at 22:34
  • 2
    @NuclearHoagie, I take back what I said regarding the pizza. If there is a pizza day. I think everyone should contribute a few bucks (myself included) regardless of outcomes. Also, I think a student should ask for something only if they're 100% free of fault. In other words, if they spoke with a classmate, or went to the bathroom for 10 min, or sat too close to someone, I would not suggest such an idea. And yes, if the professor refuses, that's fine with me. If my only crime is that I knew the materials too well, then, I'm not going to sing and dance for you unless there is a cost for you too – Stephan Branczyk Dec 08 '21 at 23:03
  • 1
    @StephanBranczyk there is a cost to them already -- they have to spend time and effort scrutinizing you more than usual. – ivan_pozdeev Dec 10 '21 at 12:44
  • I think there is no accusation involved in asking "how did you solve this faster than anyone else ever did?" - a judge should not be punished for doing his job. The judge should not need to gamble something to check if anyone was cheating - it's his job to make sure - and as long as the check is not unreasonable effort for the participant it should be ok. - We also go through metal detectors at the airport without making a scene every time. – Falco Dec 10 '21 at 14:54
  • The whiteboard is a scary place for both people that know what they're doing, as well as people who don't. The whiteboard introduces significant challenges that don't have anything to do with realistic conditions at cookie-cutter jobs and workplaces (absence of Google, for example), so I wouldn't recommend most people challenging the interviewer to test them with it, unless they had no choice basically. – Panzercrisis Dec 13 '21 at 13:15
46

A query was made. You cleared it up. It most likely wasn't even written down. Why bring it up again?

Would you have preferred that the interviewer not asked you that question and then failed you automatically? Because if you bring this up to HR, that is what is going to happen to future candidates. Interviewers will be instructed not to say anything when they suspect someone of cheating, but then they'll still be given a way to veto the candidate.

If you prefer, and if possible, may be ask if you can interview onsite. But in my opinion, it would be short-sighted and counterproductive to refuse to move forward based on what happened even if they can only do remote interviews at this time.

Also, just in case this was for a software engineering position, I would practice on https://pramp.com with other job-hunters, and ask them if you give off that impression when you're doing technical interviews.

And if not there, practice remotely with a friend and video-record yourself. Body language is extremely important. It can make or break interviews, although interviewees are usually never lucky enough to receive frank feedback about it from real employers.

Also, place some googly eyes near the lens of your camera during the remote interview (just don't close the lid with the googly eyes, that can damage the laptop). The googly eyes can help you maintain the illusion of better eye contact with the other person.

Now, I'm not saying the interviewer was correct in his assessment. Maybe he was having bad day. Maybe he was paranoid. Maybe this had nothing to do with your body language. But during interviews, we rarely receive serious feedback, and it's probably worth investigating any of the feedback we do receive.

Stephan Branczyk
  • 58,781
  • 29
  • 128
  • 208
  • 4
    Not sure it even got as far as an allegation, more of a query that the OP cleared up. – deep64blue Dec 06 '21 at 08:33
  • 1
    @AlanDev, Yes, a query is a better word. I've just changed it. – Stephan Branczyk Dec 06 '21 at 08:40
  • @StephanBranczyk - Thank you for the answer. I am the OP. This really helps, perhaps I was overthinking it, I have given several interviews, this has never happened to me before, therefore I wasn't sure how to handle the situation, just wanted to seek opinion from the professionals here. All the answers here really helped. – Neo Dec 06 '21 at 18:25
  • This is right. You (the OP) need to think about it from the other side. Businesses are used to doing interviews face to face. Online/home working is still quite new to a lot of people, they don't know how to conduct recruitment and are probably concerned over how to conduct themselves, what to ask, how to judge behavior, what's appropriate and inappropriate. – Stuart F Dec 07 '21 at 15:35
  • 1
    Great suggestion of "googly eyes". I had to read it thrice before I realized it's not a Google product... So here: googly eyes – P2000 Dec 07 '21 at 17:46
  • Can you explain the googly eyes bit? I know what googly eyes are, but have no idea why sticking a pair next to my camera would help make eye contact. You mean just as a reminder to look at the camera and not the screen? – terdon Dec 08 '21 at 13:08
  • @terdon placing a visual "eye" by your camera gives you something to focus on as if making eye contact that's approximately where the camera is recording from. The camera itself may be quite small and hard to focus on, especially if it's integrated into a device. Might not be helpful for everyone, but I can see it helping some people. – coppereyecat Dec 08 '21 at 22:20
  • @Terdon, Yes, a reminder. At a subconscious level, I think our lizard brain is wired to pick up on a set of eyes looking at us. Also, if you use an external webcam, you can stick some eyes on it, a little wig, a fake nose, just like you would dress a little potato head. And please note that if you only stare at the video of the other person during the interview, it may come off as you not making eye contact with the other person. There are demos of youtubers demonstrating the difference. And that's because the lens of the laptop camera is not be in close alignment with what you're staring at. – Stephan Branczyk Dec 08 '21 at 22:21
13

The interview told me, I don't know why you're looking up/down and sideways, and I am not sure if you're looking at answers on the net/materials/notes etc.

That sounds like a reasonable question in regard to very odd behavior. You even said yourself that you understand it isn't a common behavior. So the interviewer just wanted to know what you were doing.

I composed myself and turned around my camera to show him there's nothing in front/back/sides of my laptop and told him this is my thinking process when I usually think about a problem at hand.

It sounds like you clarified it and with the fact you moved on with the interview process tells me they were happy with the clarification.

Dan
  • 21,133
  • 4
  • 33
  • 71
  • 37
    I wouldn't call "looking up while thinking" a "very odd behaviour". If it is, then I don't know a single person who isn't very odd. – Stef Dec 06 '21 at 15:23
  • @Stef Based on the OP he was doing more than that. I think someone thinking by looking up is okay and normal. But someone bobbing their head up and down like the OP described would be sort of unusual. – Dan Dec 06 '21 at 15:24
  • 11
    This is not a "very odd behavior." I do this myself, although I tend to look to my right, not up, when synthesizing an answer, and I tend to look to my left when recalling facts or data. I have several friends and colleagues who do similar "quirks." – Wesley Long Dec 06 '21 at 21:28
  • 1
    @WesleyLong That may be so but I didn't get that from the OP. He did say it was a strange behavior so it seems like whatever he was doing was strange enough to where the interviewer would ask. But it is a minor point and I think the OP is making a bigger deal of it than it needs to be since he was able to pass the interview. – Dan Dec 07 '21 at 22:17
  • 1
    Or maybe all 3 of your are just very odd Dan, @Wesley Long. And a lot of your friends could be odd too. Nothing wrong with being odd. – boatcoder Dec 08 '21 at 20:23
12

Keep it between you and him

Thats the basic rule you should follow for all human communications, unless you are forced to overrule it because of something he (the other party) do.

He got suspicious (lets use the strong word here), he expressed his suspicion to you thereby violating your peace, and he did or didnt brought that up to somebody else in company. Thats all that happened. Lets analyze.

Getting suspicious is beyond his power. He saw something exceptional. Anybody in that position would feel same. Also, its an involuntary action like shivering at sudden drop in temperature. He dont owe you anything for that.

He expressed his suspicion to you. You can say he accused you though its not a formal accusation but still. Your peace got violated and you got hurt. Thats something. Now the question is: Did he had to do that? As in was it necessary and if necessary Was there a better less hurtful way to do it? To answer these ask yourself what he should do. Even ignoring the fact that he didnt have a hour to ponder on whether to do it and whats the best way to do it if he must do it you will agree that keeping suspicion in heart is much worse than letting it out and give the other party a chance to clarify. He did what was appropriate and he did it in the best way he could. Given that he didnt had time to formulate best response he is either very intelligent or an expert in taking interviews. Both good signs for the company he represent.

Having said that you dont tell about his tone when he accused you. May be it was a bad tone. If you strongly feel there was disgust or hatred in it may be there was. What to do then? Should you proceed to work in that company? It depends on the final part (below).

If he has brought his suspicion with anybody in company then you should also take it outside of between you and him. In that case you may bring it up in your next interview or act to not give that interview. The thing is you dont know He brought that up with anybody else in company. In such situation follow this second rule:

Always give benefit of doubt

Summary:

Do proceed with the second interview.

If you strongly feel that his tone was bad then talk with him in private about it if you ever get such a chance. In that just express how you felt at that time. Dont escalate any further. Dont try to convince him.

Atif
  • 361
  • 2
  • 9
8

Saying that one is "not sure of" something, is not accusing you of that thing. It means he's not sure of it and wants clarification. So you gave him clarification, and that was the end of the story. I feel like you're blowing this out of proportion; if he wanted to accuse you of cheating, he would have accused you of cheating. What you said he said is not accusing you of cheating.

As for next steps, that's for you to decide. Did this "accusation" of cheating (inasmuch as you feel it was an accusation; in my opinion it was not) dissuade you from the company for any reason? If so, simply decline their request for an additional interview. If not, then go ahead and continue. I'm not entirely sure what you want from this company to make you feel better, so either you're prepared to work for this company (if you get an offer), or you're not; in the former case then drop the subject, in the latter case then withdraw from the interview procedure now and don't waste anyone's time.

You may want to ask a mentor or friend about this habit, and try to consciously refrain from doing it in the future, if it's off-putting to interviewers. Although it came up as an issue directly in this interview, other interviewers may not be so friendly as to allow you a chance to explain yourself, and may simply write you down as a suspected cheater. Best to try to eliminate this habit as best you can.

Ertai87
  • 45,600
  • 9
  • 73
  • 144
  • 6
    I disagree. The interviewer clearly accused the OP of cheating. Saying "I'm not completely sure, are you cheating" is an accusation. – DaveG Dec 06 '21 at 20:58
  • 2
    It depends a lot on the tone of voice used. I'm giving the interviewer the benefit of the doubt, having not been there, and also given that the interviewer accepted OP's explanation enough to pass OP onto the next interview stage. – Ertai87 Dec 06 '21 at 20:59
5

I do understand why it irks you. Nobody likes having their integrity questioned even if it is in a subtle noncommitted way. As commenters have mentioned, it may not even be a person affiliated with your company who did this. If you let it go, you may have a real chance at gainful employment. It seems like a worthwhile compromise to me.

I'm not entirely sure how you can cheat on a coding interview. I would not even consider proving my skills in a live coding interview without the ability to reference online sources. You will always be looking through some sort of online documentation while trying to figure out how to do something. It seems weird for a simulation of a workday to forbid using such an intrinsic part of the job.

Kilisi
  • 222,118
  • 122
  • 486
  • 793
Neil Meyer
  • 3,056
  • 2
  • 14
  • 23
  • 3
    It'd be extremely easy to cheat on a coding interview. Just have someone else watching the interview, and typing out an answer on a screen you can see (probably just next to the actual monitor)... – Steve Bennett Dec 08 '21 at 06:16
  • I posit that even if you do that a savvy tech aligned interviewer can gauge your skill by having you talk about tech for 30 minutes. Btw I was thinking more about in person interviews. – Neil Meyer Dec 08 '21 at 09:12
  • I'm not even sure that's true. I once passed a coding interview that a friend failed, despite him being a much better coder than me. Apparently I can talk while coding, and he can't. Totally selected for the wrong skill. (Fortunately, I was able to vouch for him, he got the job, and did great.) – Steve Bennett Dec 08 '21 at 23:45
4

Sorry that you have to go through such experience. It sure does not feel good to be doubted that way. If it is a well-known company that is worth going for, do go with it and prove yourself worthy.

I learnt something great from my ex-manager. Before I left my ex-company, I had to participate in conducting interview sessions - to those who were to replace my position. This particular candidate was very obvious checking on the Internet for answers, which my ex-manager and I both were aware of. I thought he would not want to proceed with the candidate due to her action, but turned out after the interview session he told me "this candidate is creative, willing to seek solution and attempt to resolve problems rather than giving up". I really like this kind of mindset and this is probably the kind of mindset HR or any hiring personnel should have - because soft skills are equally important.

merv
  • 141
  • 4
4

Funny, looks like no one has mentioned the possibility that the interviewer tried to put you on the spot just to see how you'd react - defensive, hostile, shaken, etc. Apparently you handled the situation well and passed the interview. If the job and company are (aside from this) what you want - go ahead with the interview process.

If you're sure you don't want the job, you don't owe any explanation. Just tell the company rep that you realized it wasn't a good fit. That's what the interviews are for: to determine "fit". And "fit" cuts both ways - do you fit the job requirements, and does the job fit yours.

Patrick DeLano
  • 51
  • 2
2

I vote that you go ahead with the interview, just to see how it goes. Maybe the next interviewer will have a better handle on the interviewing process.

But if you do decide to withdraw, all you have to do is reach out to the recuiter and tell them you are withdrawing you candidancy for the position. Don't volunteer why unless they ask. If they do, just say you realized it's not a great fit.

LeLetter
  • 4,780
  • 14
  • 23
1

The other answers are good but are mostly getting into the fact it’s not necessarily as big an accusation as you feel.

However, I feel you should focus more on the fact that according to you this is a well-known company. Then you will probably know if this company is known for these things, or if it’s just the odd interviewer. Especially in a well-known company which is usually a large company, that may mean that you may never speak again. The latter seems much more likely. In which case this initial interview really is irrelevant. This single thing shouldn’t raise too many red flags against the entire company.

Sebastiaan van den Broek
  • 1,634
  • 12
  • 16