The Rise of Never-Ending Job Interviews (bbc.com) 205
An anonymous reader quotes a report from the BBC: Every jobseeker welcomes an invitation to a second interview, because it signals a company's interest. A third interview might feel even more positive, or even be the precursor to an offer. But what happens when the process drags on to a fourth, fifth or sixth round -- and it's not even clear how close you are to the 'final' interview? That's a question Mike Conley, 49, grappled with earlier this year. The software engineering manager, based in Indiana, US, had been seeking a new role after losing his job during the pandemic. Five companies told him they had to delay hiring because of Covid-19 -- but only after he'd done the final round of interviews. Another three invited him for several rounds of interviews until it was time to make an offer, at which point they decided to promote internally. Then, he made it through three rounds of interviews for a director-level position at a company he really liked, only to receive an email to co-ordinate six more rounds. "When I responded to the internal HR, I even asked, 'Are these the final rounds?,'" he says. "The answer I got back was: 'We don't know yet.'"
That's when Conley made the tough decision to pull out. He shared his experience in a LinkedIn post that's touched a nerve with fellow job-seekers, who've viewed it 2.6 million times as of this writing. Conley says he's received about 4,000 public comments of support, and "four times that in private comments" from those who feared being tracked by current or prospective employers. [...] In fact, the internet is awash with similar stories jobseekers who've become frustrated with companies -- particularly in the tech, finance and energy sectors -- turning the interview process into a marathon. That poses the question: how many rounds of interviews should it take for an employer to reasonably assess a candidate before the process veers into excess? And how long should candidates stick it out if there's no clear information on exactly how many hoops they'll have to jump through to stay in the running for a role? Google recently determined that four interviews was enough to make a hiring decision with 86% confidence, noting that there was a diminishing return on interviewer feedback thereafter.
"John Sullivan, a Silicon Valley-based HR thought leader, says companies should nail down a hire-by date from the start of the recruitment process, because the best candidates only transition the job market briefly," reports the BBC. "According to a survey from global staffing firm Robert Half, 62% of US professionals say they lose interest in a job if they don't hear back from the employer within two weeks -- or 10 business days -- after the initial interview. That number jumps to 77% if there is no status update within three weeks. "
That's when Conley made the tough decision to pull out. He shared his experience in a LinkedIn post that's touched a nerve with fellow job-seekers, who've viewed it 2.6 million times as of this writing. Conley says he's received about 4,000 public comments of support, and "four times that in private comments" from those who feared being tracked by current or prospective employers. [...] In fact, the internet is awash with similar stories jobseekers who've become frustrated with companies -- particularly in the tech, finance and energy sectors -- turning the interview process into a marathon. That poses the question: how many rounds of interviews should it take for an employer to reasonably assess a candidate before the process veers into excess? And how long should candidates stick it out if there's no clear information on exactly how many hoops they'll have to jump through to stay in the running for a role? Google recently determined that four interviews was enough to make a hiring decision with 86% confidence, noting that there was a diminishing return on interviewer feedback thereafter.
"John Sullivan, a Silicon Valley-based HR thought leader, says companies should nail down a hire-by date from the start of the recruitment process, because the best candidates only transition the job market briefly," reports the BBC. "According to a survey from global staffing firm Robert Half, 62% of US professionals say they lose interest in a job if they don't hear back from the employer within two weeks -- or 10 business days -- after the initial interview. That number jumps to 77% if there is no status update within three weeks. "
Delayed response (Score:5, Insightful)
Lots of companies end up with mediocre candidates because they think they can take forever to decide. Then starts their spiral down. Treat every job applicant with respect.
Re: (Score:3)
Multiple interviews are usually for "team fit". Most software companies are loathe to hire people without the buy-in of the key engineers in the team... who may (rightly) get pissed off that folks are bought in without their input. Contrary to what many people believe it is not necessarily the hiring manager who says no. If you put a candidate you really like through a panel, and it comes back with 50% positive, 50% negative, you have no choice but to have other people talk to her. Else that person will be
Re:Delayed response (Score:5, Insightful)
Multiple interviews are usually for "team fit".
That's fair enough, however there's no excuse for this causing a never-ending sequence of interviews. Once you have initial screening, you can just schedule the different interviews as part of one meeting one after the other. I think that means three layers:
* HR initial (phone or email)- is this actually a reasonable candidate / do they have appropriate permission / do they understand the job description / does the pay match etc.
* Manager or technical screen (phone) - do we understand each other / do we talk about the same tech stuff
* Interview meeting - possibly with three sections - "team fit" / "technical" and maybe HR / company fit, but definitely taking no more than one morning or afternoon
Re: (Score:2)
THREE interviews? Heart transplant surgery probably requires fewer meetings, what the hell.
Re: (Score:3)
Three is fine as long as they aren't grueling all-day things. I had 3 for my entry-level job, first with HR was a quick chat to see I'm not a complete lying moron, then the hiring manager, and then one of our key stakeholders to make sure we understand each other and can work together. I think only the manager one was just over an hour. IIRC I had the offer at the end of the last interview.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't need to know how well your future heart will form as part of your team. If we could give objective and measurable scores for candidates and use a formula to assemble a perfectly functional team ideally suited for tasks like we do with medical tests then we wouldn't need to do interviews at all.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
These days I can generally work out a "good fit" with just two questions:
1) Who won the 2020 Election?
2) Are you vaccinated against Covid 19?
Re: (Score:3)
1) Thae Ku-min
2) You just broke the law.
Does that make me a good fit? I've turned one job down because they tried to make me break the law during the recruitment process; they weren't a good fit.
Re: (Score:3)
"Tell me you don't know how HIPAA works without saying the words "I don't know how HIPAA works"".
The EEOC has repeatedly said asking prospective or current employees about vaccination status is permissible.
Re: Delayed response (Score:2)
While true it is two questions you are not allowed to ask about.
Political ideology and medical status.
Re: (Score:2)
If you put a candidate you really like through a panel, and it comes back with 50% positive, 50% negative, you have no choice but to have other people talk to her.
There is always a choice. You can not hire that person. In fact, I'd say that's the "no choice" decision. If half your team doesn't like the candidate, having more rounds of interviews isn't going to change that. You don't hire that person (unless you as boss make the decision to overrule that half of your team, and you don't need more interviews for that).
What you (as a hiring manager) absolutely does not want is for some of your key talent to feel dissed and start looking for jobs for themselves... something that is a real risk in these days where the market is super-favorable to good engineers.
And the best way to lose good talent is by wasting their time. And needless rounds of interviews are a waste of time. Seriously, as other have said, 3 ro
Re: (Score:2)
Managers aren't good on qualifications fit. The interview with the team is NOT about team fit (a meaningless term) but is about actually figuring out if the candidate is good - are they telling the truth on the resume, etc. The only team fit is "can they do the job and pull their own weight without dragging others down?"
Re: (Score:2)
"Team fit" is mostly nonsense. It exposes you to discrimination lawsuits (because it's poorly defined), and more importantly, a good manager's job is to get people with different personalities to work together.
If you don't have that skill, you're probably just a waste of breath as a manager, and should develop it.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes and no.
I've worked on teams where we had genuinely disruptive people who were very, very difficult to detect ahead of time. Sometimes the person's 'quirks' didn't appear for weeks or months, but they were there....and they played hell with the team.
Interestingly, it seems that these kinds of people often do poorly in remote work environments because they thrive on making people's lives miserable, and that's harder to do when you can mute them or force them to conduct all their communication through emai
Re: (Score:2)
The first question, of course, is whether these people actually have the skills. My bet is they don't. If they do, then:
These Drama Babies are almost neutered if they can't stir their shit in an actual office, and you can poke and prod them until they lose their shit in frustration.
A good manager should be able to shut that down quickly. Clearly you have skills in that direction, too. The most likely scenario here is that the manager is out kicking up their own drama somewhere, and doesn't notice the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Team fit, doesn't even need an interview, just have the "team" watch the video during the second interview.
Here's the thing, you can tell when someone isn't taking your seriously. Their eyes basically glaze over everything you're saying, as they rush to get the interview over with.
Re: (Score:2)
For us, the "team fit" interview/part is as much for us to determine if the candidates would work well with us
No doubt. Your explanation is exactly what is wrong with the "team fit" idea: it is extremely vague. You can't describe what "team fit" actually means. That's why it leaves you open to discrimination lawsuits.
Again, helping people with different personalities get along is part of the job of being a manager.
Re: (Score:2)
"Team fit" is meaningless jargon. The only "fit" is if they can do the job, and work with others. The lack of team fit is the same as having a lack of communication skills, or possibly harmful personality quirks like shouting a lot. This is like the HR people who talk about meaningless things like "corporate culture".
If you do get the 50/50 response during an interview, that's generally a "NO" for the job. If the negative had reasons that is. There is never a requirement for unanimity but if that many
Re: (Score:2)
[]If you put a candidate you really like through a panel, and it comes back with 50% positive, 50% negative, you have no choice but to have other people talk to her. []
You definitely have another choice - in this case "OK, let's pass on this candidate and continue looking". If 50% of the peers are negative (and not just "indifferent"), that's definitely the choice I'd have made.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. Obviously good applicants _will_ get offers fast in some places.
Re: Delayed response (Score:5, Interesting)
And on top of that, those jobs need "soft skills" which are hard to gauge from a resume or a few short interviews. Besides, if you can't handle an endless series of pointless, go-nowhere meetings then Middle Management obviously isn't for you... so it seems like their interview process worked flawlessly.
Re: (Score:2)
The field was already oversaturated before Covid started waking companies up to the fact that they have way too many layers of pointless management.
I really wish that was true, but I haven't seen managers getting fired and companies waking up.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't even know what the words are for letting somebody go whose position is no longer needed, so why should anybody expect that you'd successfully observe the phenomena? And why the hell would you be in a position to see it? Oh, right, a magical thinking seer.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't even know what the words are for letting somebody go whose position is no longer needed,
It's fired, unless you want to use euphemisms.
Re: (Score:2)
'Redundant' and 'Fired' have very different meanings, even though they both result in an individual being out of work. One is not a euphemism for the other, especially where contracts and laws provide for very different treatments of those two situations.
Then of course there is 'choose not to renew contract', which isn't firing someone, there's 'incentivise early retirement' which isn't firing someone and there's 'making life so shit they fuck off without you needing to fire them' which isn't firing someone
Re: (Score:2)
Besides, if you can't handle an endless series of pointless, go-nowhere meetings then Middle Management obviously isn't for you... so it seems like their interview process worked flawlessly.
I hadn't thought of it that way. The counter of course is that if your company wants to reduce the number of pointless, go-nowhere meetings then using them to deter the very people that would stop that practice is unfortunate.
It's a bit like the Civil Service in the UK. They really need people who don't tolerate pointless bureaucracy to come in and optimise the hell out of them, but their recruitment processes are so mired in dreary delay, paperwork and requirements to use precisely the right words to tick
Re: (Score:2)
Jackson County Circuit Court. IBM mainframe. Both bits of info he already knew.
Re: (Score:2)
A Cobol compiler then.
Re: (Score:2)
I really had to push the (new) boss once, who wanted to seemingly put a candidate on hold in case better candidate's showed up, by saying we needed to tell the candidate yes or no. Basically, we're never going to get the perfect candidate because we're in a niche field (anything not IT support, web site related, or phone apps). I flat out said that it was rude, because I had been in that situation before. He had come from Cisco and was used to getting stacks of resumes on demand
If the candidate is halfway d
Re: (Score:2)
The last one I did they offered me the job after just one interview. Normally they do 2 but these days there is a lot of competition for engineers so they didn't want to wait. The other guys I interviewed with did want a 2nd interview and so lost out.
If a company wanted a 3rd interview I'd probably withdraw at that point. Makes me think they are dysfunctional and bureaucratic.
Re: (Score:3)
I sometimes wonder if companies who overdo the interview process aren't just telegraphing their organizations weak decision making.
I can also see where they may have even had "bad hires" who were mostly bad hires because they became hostile to an organization with indecisive leadership. Extended interview processes both reflect this indecision but may also become something of an inadvertent test of a new hire's willingness to put up with it.
In my first real job, I had an interview with HR and then a schedu
The whine of employers (Score:5, Insightful)
WE CAN'T FIND ANYONE TO FILL OUR JOBS!
Well duh. If you have people jumping through knife filled hoops of fire, what do expect? Contrary to what Google said, four interviews is twice as many as are needed to fill any position unless you truly have multiple candidates who are equally good (in your opinion). Then a third interview should be your final interview.
It's common sense: people don't like being jerked around. If you value someone's time so little, what does that say about your place of work?
Re: (Score:2)
I came here to say this, perhaps not quite as well.
If it takes you 3 interviews, you have the most even candidates ever. If you routinely need more than 2, you need to fire everyone from the AD position on up in HR.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
DIsequivalence (Score:3)
There are some positions for which the labor market is full of jobless candidates looking for work. And there are some positions for which employers must compete for scarce talent.
In the former case, where the employer has the advantage, I would expect they do things like have lots of interviews. Because they can get away with it. Candidates put up with it. Candidates need those jobs.
In the latter cases, employers will learn right away that if they have too many interviews the candidate just accepts a d
Unpaid labor (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Highly unlikely, but your responses as you first suspected it, and it then "became clear," may have had an impact on your outcomes.
Three for tech (Score:4, Insightful)
In the tech world, it should be three interviews, that's it.
1) initial screening with HR to ensure its a legit application
2) manager interview to see how well you'd work together
3) technical interview to show you know your shit (and NO, i do *NOT* mean whiteboards, because that's never the fucking job, stop that shit ASAP...)
Re: (Score:2)
3) technical interview to show you know your shit (and NO, i do *NOT* mean whiteboards, because that's never the fucking job, stop that shit ASAP...)
I don't mind white board interviews, but after I've gone through three or four of them successfully, you should come to the conclusion that I actually know how to program, and don't need to go through any more.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, but then since he's applying to be a manager they have to do a serious background check, and they find something weird that he of course hadn't mentioned, that is suggestive of something bad, but doesn't really spell it out, so they do another interview to try to find out about it.
Then the person who had requested the additional information says, "Golly, you didn't actually find out the answer at all!" So they do another interview, and maybe they still don't actually get an explanation for whatever th
Re: (Score:3)
and NO, i do *NOT* mean whiteboards, because that's never the fucking job, stop that shit ASAP...
I shipped tablets with pens to all of my team so we could continue to use shared whiteboards remotely during the pandemic. I'm having a time picturing a job where you never need to explain an idea to someone or discuss something diagrammatically.
For interviews, one is usually a design question run on a whiteboard. You know, how would you build $SYSTEM.
Unless you're talking about writing code on a whiteboard, in
Part of the big attack on labour... (Score:2)
... professionals should start paying attention to the management techniques other companies are using for their works.
Check out amazon's "hire to fire" practices:
https://www.inc.com/jason-aten... [inc.com]
Re: (Score:2)
To be honest, I've seen this rubbish at UK IT consulting companies a lot. Hiring people for a project, with a very specific skill set, knowing that they will let them go afterwards. It was cheaper than getting a contractor, even including 1 month resignation period.
Or getting some kids fresh off uni to fill the seats on a project and 3-6 months later when their probation period comes to an end letting them go as bad fit. Not because they were bad, just because it was cheaper to let them go and hire somebody
when you have 6 bosses you need +6 interviews (Score:4, Insightful)
when you have 6 bosses you need +6 interviews
Re:when you have 6 bosses you need +6 interviews (Score:4, Informative)
when you have 6 bosses you need +6 interviews
Mod parent up. When I went to work with Huawei in my contry, I needed 4 interviews. HR, Western direct Boss, Chinese direct Boss, Bosses' Boss.
In another company it was 3: HR, Boss, then HR again (mostly to make the proposal in person).
So yes, the more bosses you have, the more interviews you will need.
Unemployed for to week (Score:3)
I was like !any and laid off April 2020. 180 applications sent,30 interviews, 2 job offers. After I took a decent offer, (slightly lower pay but close to what I was making) 5 of the interviewed jobs came back to me and asked if I was still looking as the person they hired didn't work out.
If only they hired properly the first time around. If they pay for experience that what they get.
Four makes logical sense, also (Score:2)
1 for HR to see if your lied about your resume.
2 for the boss to meet you
3 for the employees to meet you.
4th when they have narrowed it down to 2 people and can't decide.
If you need 5, then they never narrowed it down.
Re: (Score:2)
Or their favored candidates all turned down offers and they're trying to decide amongst the next tier down (while hoping someone better comes along).
Re: (Score:2)
After the second or third interview (Score:3)
I'd ask them to start paying me as a contractor to make up my time they were wasting.
I hire a lot of EEs (Score:5, Interesting)
I hire a lot of EEs.. Junior, Senior, and everywhere in between.
I ask the same question of all candidates, regardless of level of education or experience.
"Explain how the three major passive components work and give some examples of how they are used." (Resistors, Capacitors, and Inductors)
That's it. And you know what? It works magically. Juniors will give relatively short, shallow, and simple answers. A true Senior can go on all afternoon. But, of course it is all graded on a curve.
When I started doing it this way, I was initially shocked and mortified that 90% of interviewees could not get through this simple question. But then I realized that those who actually want to be EEs will be able to do this cold and with enough breadth and depth to prove themselves.
Then there is everyone else, and they don't get hired.
Re: (Score:2)
I am not an EE, but I could give a passable explanation for these. I do have a General license though.
Re: (Score:3)
I am not an EE, but I could give a passable explanation for these. I do have a General license though.
Me too, or so I feel, but then I think about it and realize that my memory of the detail of how electrolytes work and inability to describe the chemistry of super capacitors would give away the fact I haven't been interested in these things for years. I think that's what makes it a great question. The only real way to cheat is by learning so much about EE that you would be useful in any case.
Re: (Score:2)
I could too, but the the OP's point is that what and how well you can tell about them correlates strongly with your overall experience and knowledge of EE. And they'd be easily able to tell my knowledge tops out at i=v/r and plugging shit into an arduino.
Like you could ask someone about object-oriented programming and someone a fresh grand would maybe tell you about car extends vehicle stuff, while someone with experience would talk about multiple inheritance, composition, and other issues and weird behavio
Re: (Score:2)
They're all the same, each has nonlinear inductance, capacitance and resistance.
Re: (Score:2)
This is like hiring a software engineer by asking them what is an array, a linked list and a tree.
Re: (Score:3)
This is like hiring a software engineer by asking them what is an array, a linked list and a tree.
Horowitz and Hill released the Art of Electronics X-Chapters which is all the weird shit which didn't make it into the main book. It has a whole (and fascinating) chapter on wires. Just wires. They have a lot to say about passives.
Re: (Score:2)
You sound like a high schooler who has done physics (not any high schooler but only a select subset), or someone who has an interest in electronics (precisely what the GP was trying to assess).
Basic questions are there to weed out the idiots. Engineers do not program and problem solve under exam conditions. They mostly do not work in a bubble. There's no point setting some complicated question trying to weed out those who either learned it via rote learning or just happened to have come across the problem i
Re: (Score:2)
That's pretty clever.
We use a version of the Boeing Interview Style.
Ask 10 questions. 5 are technical and 5 relational.
For example:
Tell me about a time you made a mistake and what was the consequence.
or
Tell us about a specific time when you had a disagreement with someone at work and how did you resolve it.
For EE's there is general technical knowledge section, like what is C0G dielectric, whats the difference between common and differential mode radiation, draw a buck regulator etc.
You usually use two inter
Re: (Score:2)
I hired EEs as well but personally I also ask a really basic problem solving question. Especially for younger engineers straight out of university a question like "draw a simple unregulated AC > DC supply.". The reason being is that it gives a quick visual indication of a problem solving process. Last time I went through this we actually hired a candidate that got the question wrong (drew diodes in backwards), but watching the working out on the paper it was clear he'd not designed something like this in
To enter Huawei in 2007 I had to do 4 interviews (Score:2)
The good thing is that all of them were made on the same afternoon.
Oe was with HR, the other was with "Western direct Boss", one was with "Chinese direct Boss", One was with Bosses' Boss.
Originally, they wanted to make them in four different days, but it helped me that I was travelling to the USoA the following week. Since they were 'quite' interested in me, the HR person really moved quick and lined all up for the same afternoon as said.
Afterwards, it took a few days for a definitive offer to arrive.
But ye
I'm surprised people are that patient (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm surprised candidates are that patient.
I've always assumed the company has lost interest if I don't hear back within 48 hours. This update then needs to outline concrete next steps (usually finding out when I'm free to come in to chat with others) indicating they have made some sort of decision vs. just delaying.
When I've been on the hiring side, if you've not heard back from me within 24 hours, that's not a good sign! I must admit to sometimes keeping someone hanging for a couple days though -- because I've got someone further along in the pipeline that I like for the position more. If we like you, we are afraid of losing you if we dawdle.
If a company doesn't get back pretty quickly, that's a sign of several possible things -- none good and some fatal. Perhaps they are unable to make decisions quickly. Perhaps they are just rude. Perhaps they are disorganized. Perhaps they are arrogant. Perhaps they are unsure of themselves. Perhaps they are too bureaucratic. Perhaps you're a second choice. Or, perhaps they are just not interested.
Re: (Score:2)
I always ask what are the next steps and when I be followed up. If I don't hear from them, then I follow up after that date.
Seems like a justification to keep HR employed (Score:2)
This tracks with my experiences with silicon valle (Score:4, Informative)
My favourite variant of this was when a large tech company flew me from australia (where i was living at the time - I don't anymore, but that's irrelivant to the story) to san francisco for a two days of interviews, and then called me after I got home to say "you aced the tech interviews, however we're not going to consider you because most of your experience is in finance, and generally finance people aren't agile enough". It's a fine view, but it's also a view they could have had, you know, before flying me half way around the world - not only was that stuff on my resume, we even talked about it during the phone screens.
To be fair, given the intervening seven years, I dodged a serious bullet there anyhow.
Re: (Score:2)
I used to do two interviews... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The third call should be a job offer (Score:2)
3 or 4 and then I won't return your calls (Score:2)
Like I said, 3 or 4 interviews max are the absolute limit and then I won't return your calls.
I've done that twice in the last 4 or 5 years and never missed a minute of sleep. GE Healthcare was one of them and some place that makes waterjet-cutting machines was the other.
Fuck your company, and fuck any group of dipshits that insist on multiple marathon job interviews. I just won't do it, but then I have the luxury of not having to give a shit.
3 is enough (Score:3)
After this there can be another discussion which is not an interview but rather a discussion of salary , benefits and joining dates. Note a preliminary discussion should have happened with HR even before the first round but depending on how good the candidate is vis a vis other candidates a final discussion can happen. Thats it. More than that means the hiring manager doesn treally have an urgent need or is not someone who is qualified to make hiring decisions temperementally.
Re: (Score:2)
As someone who has hired well over a 1000 people over the last 8 years,
You personally hired a person every 2nd working day for the last 8 years? If you got anything else done, I'm impressed.
Re: (Score:2)
Lol.. (Score:2)
Dear prospective employee... (Score:5, Funny)
We sincerely thank you for completing your 15th interview with us. While our typical hiring process is normally 18 months we have decided to fast track you and aim to complete the entire process in a mere 17 months. At this rate we expect to conduct a further 57 interviews with you, at which time we might be in a position to narrow the field down to 12 candidates.
Hiring a junior software engineer is not something we take lightly. We are a company that operates on a consensus basis so we are sure you will understand our need to solicit feedback from every single person on the IT team, up to and including the CIO. Cultural fit is a big thing to us. So we are going to require you to provide us with all of your social media accounts and passwords in order that we may masquerade as an online version of you and see what kind of people you hang out with.
Oh, and our HR team had a few questions they wanted me to pass along to you:
1) Have you ever had sex with animals? We're not judging - this information helps us to place you with the right team where you can share common goals.
2) Have you ever given, or would you consider providing, a blowjob at the conclusion of the final interview? I'm not saying it is required but it would sure tip the scales in your favor.
3) How do you feel about having a manager that is a complete asshole? We ask this because there is a very good chance that your future manager will in fact be a complete asshole so in the spirit of full transparency we wanted to disclose this upfront.
Let's be clear on the role of HR. When/if you join the company we will provide you with lots of information. We will appear business like and friendly. You may make the mistake of thinking that we are there to help you. Don't. We are not your friend. Not only that, we will fuck you over every chance we get. If you wish to advance in this company you too will learn how to fuck people over and enjoy doing it. Welcome to corporate America.
We look forward to your responses and to further, seemingly never ending interviews.
Sincerely,
Your potential future employer
3 max (Score:2)
>"how many rounds of interviews should it take for an employer to reasonably assess a candidate before the process veers into excess?"
3 maximum. Depending on the job, we typically do 2 interviews before a hire, rarely just 1 (not counting the duds that we throw out after the first), and rarely 3 (that only happens in the rare occasion there is actually a pool of very interesting people). With the poor quality of applicants we have had in 2021, we rarely even find anyone interesting to interview at all.
Director role (Score:2)
7-Single Person Interviews, 4-Months Before I Quit (Score:5, Insightful)
Goldman Sachs
Almost two decades ago I interviewed for a company in New York City finance industry with Goldman Sachs and I had to go through seven single-person interviews over a period of a couple weeks and then wait another month for HR to get back to me.
This only resulted in me quitting that incompetent company within 4 months of getting hired there because of how incredibly disorganized and insane they were. This really opened my eyes to the level of incompetence there along with the false carrot and stick mentality in their management style. The department that I worked for for such a short period of time as a contractor much less an employee had a turnover rate of over 90% with no employee working more than one year there. There were only two employees in that department one who was there for 7 years and another one there that was there for 3 years and they were untouchable but also unwilling to do any real work or help since their responsibility was keep the operations going and the lights on and running.
All the companies that go through very long rounds of interviews and take forever to make decisions really do show off their levels of incompetence and an interview is a two-way process where the company judges a candidate's ability to do the work but at the same time the candidate should be judging the company itself to determine if that is the place they want to work.
Unfortunately sometimes that doesn't work out and you can't spot bad things during the interview process only to learn them much later and hopefully quickly enough to get out.
Mizuho Financials
On the other hand I interviewed for another financial investment company a very small one and I did not even complete one round of interviews before leaving since I saw a young secretary bring the printouts of emails to a manager that were addressed to the manager that was interviewing me who did not use his computer to check his own email. I literally walked out right then and there. The technical manager who I interviewed with before ran out to catch me before I got to the elevator asking what was wrong and I basically told him what I saw and that this is not a company that I'm willing to work for if the director of the department cannot even use a computer for a technical department.
Amazon AWS Cloud Services, Active Directory Department
And on the other hand I interviewed for Amazon on a lark just to test the waters a few years sgo and I did not even finish the second question of the interview because as a senior programmer and analyst with server administration experience in multiple operating systems and a 20-year career history their second question to me was if I could tell them about the Fibonacci sequence. I asked them are they trying to ask me if I know how to rewrite a recursive function but my question was met with silence from the interviewers who I realized were just going to go for programming tips and tricks for college levels applicants and who themselves did not understand what a recursive function even is. That was the funniest and shortest phone interview I've ever done and this was good old Amazon technical services on the AWS cloud computing platform department that deals with Active Directory.
I also asked them when have they ever used an algorithm that included the Fibonacci sequence in a developer project or a programming project or a scripting project or anything at all that had to do with automation in cloud services or active directory?
I even offered to tell them how to write the algorithm in any scripting language if they could tell me of a real example of when the Fibonacci sequence was used in any algorithm that they have ever heard in any project. They couldn't answer that question either even though it was their second question of the interview process and they themselves did not understand why they were even asking it except it was probably on the list of trick interview questions for college graduates. After that experience I
Re: (Score:3)
I have personally found that I am valued much more highly and appreciated much more by offering high-level technical help and solutions and automations in industries that are not technical and they do not have the ability to hit the Fortune 500 or Fortune 100 levels.
I found the same thing, albeit even at lower levels. I'm guessing it is because in those other industries, they have IT for very specific and real world purposes, so the value is more real and apparent. Also, other industries may be less about things/systems and more of a mix of things and people, whereas IT is just about things. So the culture has a better mix of people skills, and again, they have more sense of valuing people.
I had a really bad experience (Score:3)
This was the process I went through recently:
I later checked Glassdooor and there were dozens of reviews talking about what a toxic workplace this was. Meanwhile, I accepted a different job for more pay working with awesome people in a low-stress atmosphere; I feel like I really dodged a bullet.
So if a company asks you for an essay, two online tests, and seven interviews... run, don't walk, away.
Re:"640 interviews oughtta be enough for anybody" (Score:5, Funny)
I think there is a world market for maybe five interviews.
Re: (Score:3)
"I think there is a world market for maybe five interviews."
On the contrary mon amie, someday we'll see an interview in every doorknob.
One interview is the most I've ever done... (Score:3, Insightful)
In my experience, the hardest part is getting an interview. After that, they make an offer or they don't, simple as that.
If I ever had to do multiple interviews at the same company, I think I'd probably just turn THEM down. Who wants to work for a company that can't immediately recognize your talents? Who wants to work for a company that can't make up it's mind? Who wants to work for a company that thinks it's okay to waste your time on worthless administrative tasks? Not me.
Re: One interview is the most I've ever done... (Score:5, Interesting)
Multiple interviews aren't necessarily a bad thing, as long as they address different things.
All three companies I applied to had multiple interviews:
First one is usually with HR to have a general conversation about the company and the candidate and quickly check if both are compatible human-wise and career-wise (no need to continue and lose time if it is obvious it went work, like if the candidate is an asshole or if the company can't provide the career that the candidate expect, etc. ).
Second is usually a skill assessment one with a tech guy.
And third one is the job offer and salary discussion.
I personally prefer having multiple interviews, it allows to focus on a few things at a time, gives time to reflect on the interview and prepare questions for the next one. I don't like discussing salaries right after a skill assessment.
It also gives you time to check other companies and put them in competition.
But dragging the process with more than 3 or maybe 4 interviews is too long. And not telling outright during the first interview how the process works and how many there will be us a big no too.
Re: (Score:3)
In the future, everyone will be interviewed for 15 minutes.
Re:"640 interviews oughtta be enough for anybody" (Score:5, Funny)
Dear Candidate,
Welcome to your 639th job interview! As you may know by now, our interview process consists of asking candidates to demonstrate their fitness for the job by doing two weeks of data entry for us. Your data entry package will arrive via UPS within the next few days, and your next interview involving data entry begins as soon as the current one has completed. Thankyou for your attention.
The Mgt.
Re:"640 interviews oughtta be enough for anybody" (Score:5, Insightful)
Four interviews. Pay me for my time you've wasted.
One interview is on me. Anything after that is on you. You clearly don't want me if you're interviewing me again. You don't know how many other companies I might have done an interview for, and past experience, has been:
- The company that does more interviews is looking for a reason to turn you down.
- The company that hires anyone and barely asks a question is a crappy company.
I've worked for both, you know what's the best kind of work? The one that wants YOU and doesn't even put up a job application. There is no big interview round, the company wants one of, maybe five people they picked and asked if they would like to interview for a job they are opening. Then the company has a sit-down with the other staff and asks who is the best fit. That way they don't hire people who are going to be a problem later. "We all signed on to hire this person."
In a big company like Google, Microsoft, Apple, they have multiple interviews for some reason that goes like
general interview with HR, interview with the supervisor of the department that is doing the hiring, interview with the department manager, interview with team lead/leads. Why this can't all be done as one interview, especially in a high tech company, shows a level of incompetence on the part of the company.
There are companies I've interviewed for, every second year or so because I "wanted" the job, over whatever else I was doing at the time, and every time, I get one interview, and no follow-up. Like I've given up trying to get a job from these companies, and it is completely unsurprising when these companies get raked over the coals for poor customer service. It's because they are hiring people with the least amount of experience on purpose.
Re: (Score:2)
Four interviews. Pay me for my time you've wasted.
One interview is on me. Anything after that is on you. You clearly don't want me if you're interviewing me again. You don't know how many other companies I might have done an interview for, and past experience, has been:
- The company that does more interviews is looking for a reason to turn you down.
When I was hiring people pre pandemic - usually open recruitment, not for specific positions - we typically had three interviews:
The first one would be on the phone with the recruiter - whether that be inside or external recruiters. They got a CV, and had interview to get more information about the candidate. This was written down and forwarded alongside the CV.
After a couple of us had evaluated the lead as interesting and some verified mandatory formalia was in place (e.g. work permit, education at leas
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. The time were there is work for most people is over. The need is just not there anymore in a modern society and you cannot just inflate administration as make-work to cover that. Find a way to reasonably distribute wealth wealth without work or things are going to really deteriorate.
Re: (Score:2)
The time were there is work for most people is over.
Most people are literally working. This would indicate that there is work for most people.
Re: (Score:2)
The time were there is work for most people is over.
Most people are literally working. This would indicate that there is work for most people.
We are at the beginning of that. A first step is not that work goes away, it is that middle-class jobs go away and get replaces by lower-class jobs and wages get lower overall. The US us right in the middle of that process. Ever heard of "working poor"? The thing is that more and more people fall in that class. Eventually, lots of lower-class jobs go away as well. Since they require a better cost-benefit ratio to automatize, they are obviously targeted latter in the process.
Of course, that process takes tim
Re: (Score:2)
We are at the beginning of that.
How can you tell?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, you have no clue what Marxism is actually about. No surprise. I do not think Marx even ever thought about work getting scarce, much less wrote about it.
Re: (Score:2)
You are right on the results. By all serious science you are wrong about people choosing to not work. Usual numbers are that about 80% want to remain working. The problem will not be voluntary "idlers", it will be involuntary ones. However this causes even more of a problem, because people that want work and cannot get any are a real threat to the stability of society if the numbers get high enough. Incidentally, make-work does not work to address this problem. Even though the average person is pretty dumb,
Re: (Score:2)
This is pretty much in progress. However it is not a dream, it is a nightmare. The question is how to survive it.
Re: (Score:2)
70% of middle class jobs that have been lost
Then why isn't the unemployment rate ~70%?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Then why isn't the unemployment rate ~70%?
Because they've been replaced with shitty, no-benefits jobs. E.g. you used to have 10 machinists, but they've been replaced by CNC machines, one well paid guy who programs them, and a bunch of people who move the stock around or sweep the floors or whatever.