After many years of winging it, I developed what I think is a pretty robust interview process, inspired by Pivotal's RPI. If the candidate makes it through a qu

After many years of winging it, I developed what I think is a pretty robust interview process, inspired by Pivotal's RPI. If the candidate makes it through a quick 15-30m remote screening, I call them in to the office for pairing session. * The session takes place at a pairing station - two keyboards/mice, two monitors (mirrored). * We work through a fake problem that is relevant to real-world problems that we actually work on. No brain teasers, no complex algorithms. Basic software engineering using some of the tools the company uses. * The problem is exactly the same for every candidate. This is essential; you need to be able to compare apples to apples. You can't use "real work" because real work is different every week. * The stuff I look for is pretty mundane - can they name things sensibly? Do I have to push them or do they naturally drive out behavior with tests? It takes 1-2 hours. It's partly a way of evaluating candidates, and partly a way of communicating "this is how we develop software at this organization". Some folks really respond well to it. Some don't. That's ok. At the end of the pairing session. I know 100% if I want to extend an offer. I've gotten some really great hires out of this. My bad hires ended up bad for reasons unrelated to technical ability (like, their life was a trainwreck).