3 ms·
I've interviewed north of 300 candidates in the last 10 years. I consider myself an expert interviewer and regularly baseline my interview results with the 6 m
by ghshephard 13y ago
I've interviewed north of 300 candidates in the last 10 years. I consider myself an expert interviewer and regularly baseline my interview results with the 6 month and 1 year results of those candidates that we hire.
Despite having very strong domain knowledge in the areas that I interview in, and having had lots of experience - it's unclear to me that my "interviews" do anything other than eliminate those manifestly unqualified for the position, that should have been filtered out during a phone screen by a qualified technical recruiter (or, for that matter, by the candidate themselves after reading through the requirements and comparing them with their own skillset/experience)
Indeed, the only process that I've observed in the last 10 years that really correlates well with the actual outcome of a candidate, is getting a reference, either my own, or someone I trust, from someone who has worked with that person for a significant (1 year+) period of time.
Interviewing is really next to worthless - I think even Google has discovered that, even in their incredibly quantitative process, there really isn't much in the way of correlation with how candidates perform on the job and what the interviewers thought of them. Even worse, there is some evidence to suggest that some candidates who performed poorly on the interviews (but still got hired) ended up performing better on the job.
Negative Correlation!
I think Weebly is on the right track here - but unfortunately the process doesn't scale, and, eventually, they'll end up with too many star candidates who will just pass them up rather than jump through these hoops. These types of candidates already have lots of job offers, and they certainly aren't going to "burn a week of vacation" on the off chance they might get a job.
It's the sort of thing you can do when you have under a couple hundred employees, but starts to fall apart as you grow.
- EdiX 13y ago>I think even Google has discovered that, even in their incredibly quantitative process Google's process is not that incredibly quantitative. When I interviewed there everyone I spoke to had seen my resume, for example, if you wanted your process to be quantitative you would want your datapoints to be correlated as little as possible. I think they are doing it more to keep up with appearances (it should look hard, to attract the best candidates and repel the worst ones) than anything scientific. They also copied a lot of their hiring process from Microsoft (and most software houses in SV are just copying from Google).