8 ms·

I applied twice at Canonical. Got both times an automated mail where they proudly pronounced how superior and more human their interview process is and that i w

by siva7 3y ago

I applied twice at Canonical. Got both times an automated mail where they proudly pronounced how superior and more human their interview process is and that i will definitely receive a follow-up. Both times i've been ghosted. So therefore let me give some advice to the blog author: Before (or instead of) giving out generic advice to job candidates, try to be a bit more humble about the (broken) reality at Canonical.

fmajid 3y ago
I've been through the hiring process at Canonical 6 months ago (wringer would be a more accurate term), all the way to 4 interviews with Mark Shuttleworth and an offer for a Director level position. I ended up passing because I didn't want to manage in a 100% remote distributed culture, and to be perfectly honest with myself a senior IC position was more suited to my personality than a managerial one. I think their process is intense but fair, and I believe them when they say they try hard to rid themselves of bias. I'd ditch the psychometric tests, but will give them the benefit of doubt when they say it correlates with job performance (Google's also made that claim before). Given how many people apply for jobs at Canonical, it's to be expected there is a high level of attrition, and quite possible small errors in the resume or application end up disqualifying your application, specially for more junior hobs. I can understand your disappointment, but they can only work based on what you've sent them.
- siva7 3y ago
  My criticisms is directed at ghosting candidates for a company claiming they will do otherwise. That shouldn't depend on "quite possible small errors in the resume or application". Both were senior roles. They were also the only company doing this from all those i applied for.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

8 ms·

I applied twice at Canonical. Got both times an automated mail where they proudly pronounced how superior and more human their interview process is and that i w

by siva7 3y ago

fmajid 3y ago
I've been through the hiring process at Canonical 6 months ago (wringer would be a more accurate term), all the way to 4 interviews with Mark Shuttleworth and an offer for a Director level position. I ended up passing because I didn't want to manage in a 100% remote distributed culture, and to be perfectly honest with myself a senior IC position was more suited to my personality than a managerial one. I think their process is intense but fair, and I believe them when they say they try hard to rid themselves of bias. I'd ditch the psychometric tests, but will give them the benefit of doubt when they say it correlates with job performance (Google's also made that claim before). Given how many people apply for jobs at Canonical, it's to be expected there is a high level of attrition, and quite possible small errors in the resume or application end up disqualifying your application, specially for more junior hobs. I can understand your disappointment, but they can only work based on what you've sent them.
- siva7 3y ago
  My criticisms is directed at ghosting candidates for a company claiming they will do otherwise. That shouldn't depend on "quite possible small errors in the resume or application". Both were senior roles. They were also the only company doing this from all those i applied for.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]