> I would argue that is only true in an employer employee relationship.
Then let me tell you: it's not really a choice. It's not something the company writes somewhere. If the interviewee feels like the interviewer is in a dominant position, then the interviewer is in a dominant position.
I feel like that as an interviewee, and I am absolutely certain that most people do. Maybe you don't, that's good for you. But you are more of an exception. And it's still important to know that you are in a dominant position when you are an interviewer.
Never forget that you can totally abuse someone without realizing it when you are in a dominant position. Remember #metoo.
> Ideally something you are madly overqualified for.
Sure, I don't deny that! I'm just saying that not everybody is lucky enough to have that luxury. I am quite confident that most interviewees somehow need the job (or "a" job, but each opportunity matters), and most interviewers are effectively in a dominant position.
And it is much easier for an interviewer to realise that they are in a dominant position than for an interviewee to not give a shit about the fact that they need the job.
Then let me tell you: it's not really a choice. It's not something the company writes somewhere. If the interviewee feels like the interviewer is in a dominant position, then the interviewer is in a dominant position.
I feel like that as an interviewee, and I am absolutely certain that most people do. Maybe you don't, that's good for you. But you are more of an exception. And it's still important to know that you are in a dominant position when you are an interviewer.
Never forget that you can totally abuse someone without realizing it when you are in a dominant position. Remember #metoo.