4 ms·

I agree about the first interview, though I'd also say that you should agree in advance what's covered and if both parties want to code while it's not what I'd

I agree about the first interview, though I'd also say that you should agree in advance what's covered and if both parties want to code while it's not what I'd do then who am I to say they can't. But you're missing the bigger picture. As a employer, interviews are massively disruptive and time consuming. For us over two interviews you'll speak to at least one manager, two or three developers and probably someone from the test team and or an analyst. All those people will read your CV, prepare questions, spend time interviewing you and then get together to discuss and make sure we've given you proper consideration and provide feedback. These are people who are generally relatively well paid and have other things they could be doing. We'll read 3 (pre-screened) CVs for each first interview, 2 short first interviews for every second interview and probably 3 long (several hours) second interviews for each offer. So to get to one offer we'll have read 12 CVs, done 6 first interviews and 3 second interviews. I don't think we're abnormal - that's about typical for places I've worked (though I've heard of places who are far more demanding). Much of that is done based on little evidence (usually a CV which may or may not be totally factual) and it's certainly not an indication that we want a candidate to work for us, merely that it might be something that could work out. Understanding whether it's more than that is why we're doing the interview. My point is that we put a lot of time and effort (which has an associated cost) into seeing whether someone is a good candidate for us (and if we think this is a good job for them). We don't ask for compensation for that time so why is it reasonable for a candidate to do so? A candidate absolutely has the right to say that they aren't willing to submit to a particular interview process but I think asking for money to interview requires a very lopsided view of the process and, as a hiring manager, would have me pull the plug instantly.

jwarkentin 13y ago
Sure, your company invests the time of many people in the process. But you do it because you've determined that overall it adds value to have another employee. It's worth the cost. Hopefully, most things that they would otherwise be doing if not searching for a candidate would also add or maintain value of some sort (whether monetary or not). So really, it's just another value adding task that must be done. So we've established that in the end you gain more value by having that employee than it costs to hire them. From the employee perspective they may or may not actually be looking for a job, versus casually interested in all possibilities (like me). They also may or may not already have a job, in which case they'll have to take the day off to go through such an extensive interview, giving away work and potentially IP for free. If I have a job and/or I'm not really desperate, then the cost of the interview may be greater to me than what I see as the potential gain. Especially when compared with the other possibilities out there. There are a lot of companies that will pay for any significant amount of time spent coding for an interview. Why would I waste my time with a company that doesn't value my time (esp. taking it off work), the work they're asking me to do, or potentially the IP I give them (e.g. if I come up with a new way of looking at a problem or a new solution they haven't thought of during the code interview). A couple hours is a reasonable sacrifice, IMO, but may depend on each candidates situation. If I as asked to spend more than 2 hours coding, I would ask for compensation or turn down the interview.
- Tyrannosaurs 13y ago
  Someone else said that it wasn't a good use of a developers time to give up a day for interviews because the potential return wasn't good enough. I completely accept that. My take is that, in the market I operate in at least, spending a day doing an interview with someone who isn't really that interested probably isn't the best use of my time either. If you're casually interested the aim shouldn't be to do a day long technical interview, it should be to establish what the real level of interest is and to either build that interest or establish that it's the wrong thing for you / us. Once we've done that we're either in a situation where you're keen on the role and we're looking at something where a day might be a good investment for you, or we've saved us both a day. Making a significant time investment when one party isn't serious about the opportunity is the wrong thing to do for both company and candidate, and throwing money at the problem doesn't change that. Ultimately I'd like to show you I value your time by not wasting it, rather than by paying for it if that makes sense?
  - jwarkentin 13y ago
    I absolutely agree. I think that it's important to first establish interest and weed out candidates that are obviously unqualified. You can figure a lot of that out in a short amount of time. While some of your best candidates may already be employed and thus only casually interested initially, at least for someone like myself that interest could increase significantly after sitting down and chatting about the company and projects for a bit. If I were to then become really interested it could be worth spending a lot more time in an interview process. Personally I don't think that a company will learn much more from 8 hours or more than they could learn in 3-4 hours tops though. I think it's overkill in most situations.

jwarkentin 13y ago

Sure, your company invests the time of many people in the process. But you do it because you've determined that overall it adds value to have another employee. It's worth the cost. Hopefully, most things that they would otherwise be doing if not searching for a candidate would also add or maintain value of some sort (whether monetary or not). So really, it's just another value adding task that must be done. So we've established that in the end you gain more value by having that employee than it costs to hire them. From the employee perspective they may or may not actually be looking for a job, versus casually interested in all possibilities (like me). They also may or may not already have a job, in which case they'll have to take the day off to go through such an extensive interview, giving away work and potentially IP for free. If I have a job and/or I'm not really desperate, then the cost of the interview may be greater to me than what I see as the potential gain. Especially when compared with the other possibilities out there. There are a lot of companies that will pay for any significant amount of time spent coding for an interview. Why would I waste my time with a company that doesn't value my time (esp. taking it off work), the work they're asking me to do, or potentially the IP I give them (e.g. if I come up with a new way of looking at a problem or a new solution they haven't thought of during the code interview). A couple hours is a reasonable sacrifice, IMO, but may depend on each candidates situation. If I as asked to spend more than 2 hours coding, I would ask for compensation or turn down the interview.

Tyrannosaurs 13y ago
Someone else said that it wasn't a good use of a developers time to give up a day for interviews because the potential return wasn't good enough. I completely accept that. My take is that, in the market I operate in at least, spending a day doing an interview with someone who isn't really that interested probably isn't the best use of my time either. If you're casually interested the aim shouldn't be to do a day long technical interview, it should be to establish what the real level of interest is and to either build that interest or establish that it's the wrong thing for you / us. Once we've done that we're either in a situation where you're keen on the role and we're looking at something where a day might be a good investment for you, or we've saved us both a day. Making a significant time investment when one party isn't serious about the opportunity is the wrong thing to do for both company and candidate, and throwing money at the problem doesn't change that. Ultimately I'd like to show you I value your time by not wasting it, rather than by paying for it if that makes sense?
- jwarkentin 13y ago
  I absolutely agree. I think that it's important to first establish interest and weed out candidates that are obviously unqualified. You can figure a lot of that out in a short amount of time. While some of your best candidates may already be employed and thus only casually interested initially, at least for someone like myself that interest could increase significantly after sitting down and chatting about the company and projects for a bit. If I were to then become really interested it could be worth spending a lot more time in an interview process. Personally I don't think that a company will learn much more from 8 hours or more than they could learn in 3-4 hours tops though. I think it's overkill in most situations.