Multiple interviews is annoying as a candidate, but how they are used (or appear to be used) is the bigger problem. Instead of being used to strengthen a consen

Multiple interviews is annoying as a candidate, but how they are used (or appear to be used) is the bigger problem. Instead of being used to strengthen a consensus they tend to be a series of filters where any "fail" invalidates everyone else's input. After all, why hire someone who everyone doesn't love? But that is the same logic as combining bad mortgages into tranches reduces their risk - sounds good on paper but doesn't work in reality. Since you have a chance of getting cut at each round as an interviewee you are left hoping not to run into: some esoteric corner of programming you could learn in 10 minutes but haven't seen before; an interviewer who always asks a pet question (even if told not to do this); a personal dislike that is illegal but not challenged (age, gender, race, etc., waved away as "a bad fit"). If multiple interviews were used only to strengthen assumptions about a candidate and each interview had a narrow intent, they COULD help companies avoid more bad hires. But after interview #3 you are probably just filtering reasonable or even exceptional candidates based on random chance. On the other hand, this may be a fantastic method to strengthen a "hive mind" culture, but that doesn't sound like a worthy goal.