Except that the interviewer has the power to fail you if you put them in a bad position. It is fundamentally an asymmetrical situation where the interviewer is in a dominant position.
I would argue that is only true in an employer employee relationship.
I fondly remember laughing my ass off with the owner of a company about what a shit job he was offering. A shit job with shit pay, no wonder you are looking for employees. It took me 5 minutes to figure out there was no real job worth considering. We spend the better part of an hour just chatting after that. [In my opinion] he was drowning in work because he was to cheap, it makes the company unreliable.
> 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.
