Our interview process is broken
We're losing good candidates because our interview loop takes 3-4 weeks and involves 6 separate interviews. I just had a candidate accept an offer elsewhere while waiting for our final round. This is the third time this quarter.
Proposal: consolidate to 3 interviews max (screen, technical, team fit), all completable within one week. Give hiring managers authority to make offers without waiting for a committee review.
Comments 7
Hot take: we should pay candidates for their time in the final round. It signals respect and it means we'll only bring people to finals when we're serious. Would also force us to be more selective about who gets that far.
I've been an interviewer for 2 years and half the interviews feel redundant. Two different people ask about system design. Nobody covers collaboration skills. The problem isn't the count, it's that we haven't designed the loop intentionally.
The real bottleneck is the recruiting team, not the interview structure. We have 3 recruiters for 20 open roles. Even if we cut interviews in half, scheduling would still take two weeks because there aren't enough coordinators.
What if we did async technical evaluation instead of live coding? Send a take-home that's capped at 2 hours, review it before the on-site, and use the in-person time for design discussion instead of watching someone code under pressure.
Giving individual hiring managers offer authority is a terrible idea. We've had managers hire their friends and skip technical evaluation. The committee exists for a reason. Speed it up, but don't remove it.
I agree the timeline is too long, but the fix is scheduling, not fewer interviews. If we could do 3 interviews in one day (like a superday), we'd keep the rigor without the delay. The problem is our interviewers are always 'too busy' to be available.
The 6-interview process exists because we had too many bad hires two years ago. The committee review caught problems that individual interviewers missed. If we remove that check, how do we avoid regressing?
Themes 4
The 6-interview process exists because we had too many bad hires two years ago. The committee review caught problems that individual interviewers missed. If we remove that check, how do we avoid regressing?
I agree the timeline is too long, but the fix is scheduling, not fewer interviews. If we could do 3 interviews in one day (like a superday), we'd keep the rigor without the delay. The problem is our interviewers are always 'too busy' to be available.
Giving individual hiring managers offer authority is a terrible idea. We've had managers hire their friends and skip technical evaluation. The committee exists for a reason. Speed it up, but don't remove it.
I've been an interviewer for 2 years and half the interviews feel redundant. Two different people ask about system design. Nobody covers collaboration skills. The problem isn't the count, it's that we haven't designed the loop intentionally.
I agree the timeline is too long, but the fix is scheduling, not fewer interviews. If we could do 3 interviews in one day (like a superday), we'd keep the rigor without the delay. The problem is our interviewers are always 'too busy' to be available.
Giving individual hiring managers offer authority is a terrible idea. We've had managers hire their friends and skip technical evaluation. The committee exists for a reason. Speed it up, but don't remove it.
I've been an interviewer for 2 years and half the interviews feel redundant. Two different people ask about system design. Nobody covers collaboration skills. The problem isn't the count, it's that we haven't designed the loop intentionally.
I agree the timeline is too long, but the fix is scheduling, not fewer interviews. If we could do 3 interviews in one day (like a superday), we'd keep the rigor without the delay. The problem is our interviewers are always 'too busy' to be available.
What if we did async technical evaluation instead of live coding? Send a take-home that's capped at 2 hours, review it before the on-site, and use the in-person time for design discussion instead of watching someone code under pressure.
Hot take: we should pay candidates for their time in the final round. It signals respect and it means we'll only bring people to finals when we're serious. Would also force us to be more selective about who gets that far.
The real bottleneck is the recruiting team, not the interview structure. We have 3 recruiters for 20 open roles. Even if we cut interviews in half, scheduling would still take two weeks because there aren't enough coordinators.
I've been an interviewer for 2 years and half the interviews feel redundant. Two different people ask about system design. Nobody covers collaboration skills. The problem isn't the count, it's that we haven't designed the loop intentionally.