4 ms·

> We then set up interviews with Marc: four days of back-to-back 1:1 or 1:2 meetings with everyone on the team from 10a-6p, as well as a talk to the whole compa

> We then set up interviews with Marc: four days of back-to-back 1:1 or 1:2 meetings with everyone on the team from 10a-6p, as well as a talk to the whole company. When the article says Marc had become available, should we assume he wasn't working at the time? That just seems way over the top. I can't imagine asking any serious/heavyweight candidate to 'interview' that way in the UK. I'm curious to know what others think.

kayamon 12y ago
A 32-hour interview? That's insane. It's completely irresponsible of a company to ask that of anyone.
- pratyushag 12y ago
  MAybe that's why the comment about the company not having experience in hiring managers...?
- kjackson2012 12y ago
  Pretty much insane. I'm not sure if they asked this from their other candidates but if they did, they probably eliminated 99% of all the other great candidates just because they would refuse to waste a week of PTO just to deal with this request.
- maerF0x0 12y ago
  depends on the role and maybe they offered compensation too?
gdb 12y ago
That's what I said in the post :)! But we felt it was important and he was up for it. More seriously, hiring an executive is very different from any other hire. You're fundamentally hiring someone who is going to be affecting the jobs of (at least) every single person in their organization (compensation, performance reviews, etc.), as well as shaping and evolving what your company even is. Making everyone feel comfortable with a hire like that isn't easy, and doing so takes a lot of time. But we owe it to the people we've hired to be thorough (and conversely, we owe it to the executive to make sure we've set expectations as fully as is possible, and made sure that both of us have a picture of what we're getting into).
- highlander 12y ago
  Hey, well it was obviously the right way for you all at the time. I was just surprised because I haven't seen execs interviewed that way, but my experience is heavily skewed towards very large companies. The more typical pattern I've seen has been (over a few weeks) an informal meeting, lunch/dinner then a few hours of in-house/panel interviews.

kayamon 12y ago

A 32-hour interview? That's insane. It's completely irresponsible of a company to ask that of anyone.

pratyushag 12y ago
MAybe that's why the comment about the company not having experience in hiring managers...?
kjackson2012 12y ago
Pretty much insane. I'm not sure if they asked this from their other candidates but if they did, they probably eliminated 99% of all the other great candidates just because they would refuse to waste a week of PTO just to deal with this request.
maerF0x0 12y ago
depends on the role and maybe they offered compensation too?

gdb 12y ago

That's what I said in the post :)! But we felt it was important and he was up for it. More seriously, hiring an executive is very different from any other hire. You're fundamentally hiring someone who is going to be affecting the jobs of (at least) every single person in their organization (compensation, performance reviews, etc.), as well as shaping and evolving what your company even is. Making everyone feel comfortable with a hire like that isn't easy, and doing so takes a lot of time. But we owe it to the people we've hired to be thorough (and conversely, we owe it to the executive to make sure we've set expectations as fully as is possible, and made sure that both of us have a picture of what we're getting into).

highlander 12y ago
Hey, well it was obviously the right way for you all at the time. I was just surprised because I haven't seen execs interviewed that way, but my experience is heavily skewed towards very large companies. The more typical pattern I've seen has been (over a few weeks) an informal meeting, lunch/dinner then a few hours of in-house/panel interviews.