Today, I walked out of a job interview that was, in many ways, going smoothly. That is, until the interviewer pulled out the infamous “Dance Monkey Dance” recruiting tactic. For those unfamiliar, this is the moment in a tech interview where you’re asked to perform live coding while being watched and evaluated like some kind of circus act.
I stated clearly and unequivocally, “I am not going to write code while someone is watching me.” The interviewer then proceeded to cycle through the Five Stages of Grief, a predictable reaction when confronted with the rejection of such an outdated and frankly, insulting practice.
With a career spanning over four decades, I made a conscious decision long ago to no longer tolerate abuse, disrespect, and unprofessionalism in the hiring process. The “Dance Monkey Dance” interview is emblematic of all three.
-
It’s Abusive: Treating a potential employee like a performing monkey is simply abusive. Many of us have experienced workplaces where employees are treated as disposable assets, not valued professionals. This interview tactic echoes that dehumanizing approach.
-
It’s Disrespectful: Demanding a performance to prove your worth, especially for a role that isn’t about public performance, is deeply disrespectful. If the job were to live-code tutorials on stage, then maybe, just maybe, it would be relevant. But for standard software engineering roles? It’s about stripping away dignity.
-
It’s Unprofessional: This method fails to accurately assess a candidate’s real-world skills, talent, and experience. It’s a high-pressure, artificial environment that doesn’t reflect how software professionals actually work. It’s akin to judging a fish by its ability to climb a tree.
I recall another interview years ago, conducted by a socially awkward engineer seemingly battling his own insecurities. He subjected me to brainteasers, and with each failed attempt, he’d gloat about his perceived intellectual superiority. Looking back, I confess to having engaged in similar misguided tactics early in my career, simply because it was the flawed model I was taught.
The Interviewer’s Grief
Denial
Initially, the interviewer seemed genuinely unable to comprehend my refusal, especially after a positive and engaging conversation. I had answered all his questions thoughtfully and thoroughly. The request to “dance,” so to speak, seemed to him like a minor, expected step.
Anger
While not overtly angry, his pauses and forced composure betrayed a simmering frustration. He projected blame onto his client, claiming the live coding was a non-negotiable client requirement. He appeared trapped, caught between my refusal and external pressure.
Bargaining
Then came the bargaining phase. “I understand your feelings,” he began, followed by, “It will be simple, I promise,” and “it’s really not that bad.” He launched into justifications about past candidates cheating on take-home assignments, detailing various methods of academic dishonesty he had witnessed. He seemed oblivious to the futility of such tactics against someone seasoned by decades of corporate spin and empty promises. Eventually, he circled back to blaming the client – a transparent deflection.
Depression
As his bargaining attempts crumbled, a palpable sense of defeat washed over him. He became subdued, realizing that no amount of gaslighting or cajoling would make me perform like a trained circus animal. The “Dance Monkey Dance” was not going to happen.
Acceptance
As I offered alternative evaluation methods, and explained my ethical concerns about working for a client who condones such disrespectful practices, he began to accept the reality of the situation. He was indeed stuck “between a rock and a hard place” and ultimately resigned himself to it.
Towards Quality Recruiting
Recruiting practices have evolved significantly over the decades. Many changes reflect a growing respect for candidates and their professional dignity. However, some corners of the industry still cling to outdated, dehumanizing approaches, treating candidates like commodities to be evaluated through circus tricks.
The shift post-COVID has been notable. Workers are increasingly aware of their worth and demand respect. Companies are slowly realizing that employee satisfaction is not just a perk, but a prerequisite for profitability and success. The era of treating talent as expendable is, hopefully, waning.
Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. Capital has its rights, which are as worthy of protection as any other rights. Nor is it denied that there is, and probably always will be, a relation between labor and capital producing mutual benefits. The error is in assuming that the whole labor of community exists within that relation. A few men own capital, and that few avoid labor themselves, and with their capital hire or buy another few to labor for them. A large majority belong to neither class–neither work for others nor have others working for them. In most of the Southern States a majority of the whole people of all colors are neither slaves nor masters, while in the Northern a large majority are neither hirers nor hired. Men, with their families–wives, sons, and daughters–work for themselves on their farms, in their houses, and in their shops, taking the whole product to themselves, and asking no favors of capital on the one hand nor of hired laborers or slaves on the other. It is not forgotten that a considerable number of persons mingle their own labor with capital; that is, they labor with their own hands and also buy or hire others to labor for them; but this is only a mixed and not a distinct class. No principle stated is disturbed by the existence of this mixed class.
— Abraham Lincoln, December 3, 1861
