3 ms·
We ordered our steps in the funnel that way because we wanted to prioritize people who wanted to work for _us_ (as opposed to getting any job or just the top pa
by yeldarb 8y ago
We ordered our steps in the funnel that way because we wanted to prioritize people who wanted to work for _us_ (as opposed to getting any job or just the top paying job) and who had good communication skills and seemed like they would make a good fit with the team.
The technical skills are important, for sure, but we'd rather have someone less experienced who was motivated to learn because this was their dream job than someone with tons of experience that didn't really care about having _this_ job.
That's a good point about the timing; I did allow people to go over the time limit if they seemed like they were still making progress and needed it. Prior to the interviews I thought steps 1-8 (which were setting up for 9-11) would take about 15 minutes and we'd have the remaining 45 for the meat of the interview.
- lordCarbonFiber 8y agoOne rule of thumb I've found when constructing interviews is take how long it would take you (or any other member on your team) to do the problem cold and then multiply that by 2 to 3x. This gives two main advantages. The first is you have plenty of time for a conversation. Even assuming ideal conditions it takes between 2 and 3 times longer to walk someone through a solution as you implement it than just to incept an idea. Second is the interview platform is all ready stressful and deeply unnatural so building in some buffer for that necessary context switch helps you extract more signal. That all being said, if you beat a 2% rate on your total funnel you're doing pretty well. Most people just aren't going to be a good fit; that's just the reality of this industry with huge choice for the candidate (you almost certainly will not be anyone's first pick; the numbers are against you), near limitless specializations, and no real qualification body.