5 ms·

This post is why hiring processes suck for the company, but IMO the solutions presented here swing the pendulum too far in the other direction. Aptitude tests a

This post is why hiring processes suck for the company, but IMO the solutions presented here swing the pendulum too far in the other direction. Aptitude tests and work sample requirements are great, but there's some kind of ethical line crossed when you're constantly taking and taking from your applicants without giving anything back in return (e.g., meeting someone face to face). I've been on both sides of the fence before and I know what a grueling process hiring is for both applicants and managers, so I certainly appreciate the time commitment that goes into hiring. That said, if your company wishes to present itself in a way that is caring of its employees, a great first impression would be in the hiring process.

ssharp 11y ago
People should absolutely be respectful of their applicants' time. And applicants should use how they're treated during the application process as a signal for how they'll be treated as employees. One of the best interviews I had was very informal, was only with the hiring manager, and it was pretty obvious that there would be a good fit between myself and the company. I took the job and had no regrets over it. One of the worst interview processes I went through had me doing two rounds of phone interviews and then a half-day in-person consisting of four one-hour interviews with various people. The selection of people conducting the one-hour interviews were fair enough -- HR, hiring manager, a peer, and someone from a related department I'd have contact with but wouldn't work with frequently. But you could easily tell there was no organization behind what they were doing, unless their strategy was to have each of the persons doing the interview have the same exact conversations with me. This was at a Fortune 500 company and it became clear from the interview process that the culture would be extremely frustrating for me to work in. I think it's fair to follow a process like this to respect the time of your applications: resume cover -> screen -> phone interview -> in-person interview -> tests/samples -> hire And you drop people out of the funnel at every step. I also think it's best to keep your in-person interviews to two hours max, between however many people they need to talk to.
- mtbcoder 11y ago
  > tests/samples Technical tests are a double-edged sword. For candidates with little to no prior work experience (fresh out of uni for example), it makes sense. Unless serious question marks arose during the prior interviews, I find it disrespectful to play the "stump the candidate" game with candidates who come in with 10, 20+ years of experience. I'm not aware of any other industry that deploys a barrage of obscure technical tests on their candidates the way some companies do in IT.
  - bdavisx 11y ago
    That's because you can get someone with 10 years of "experience" who can't pass FizzBuzz. Although trick questions and the like are bad, and a sign that you should avoid the company giving those questions in an interview.
- bradleyboy 11y ago
  The more intensive processes are a fine line to walk. It's easy to go overboard. I recently went through an interview process that was more on the intensive side and left feeling better about it because I knew the people I would potentially be working with had gone through that same process. It's harder, yes, but I felt the chances were higher that I would be working with more competent people on the other side.
haphazardeous 11y ago
Well said. I was once asked to do a almost 1 and a half day long coding test without even given any indication on how much money they're going to offer me and where exactly I would fit in the organisation. And they asked it after about 5 people spend an our interviewing and grilling me each. Seeing that I've got 8+ years experience in software development I thought this is just ridiculous.
- sokoloff 11y ago
  I agree that it's ridiculous, but would ask why did you do it then? It's not like they threw a black bag over your head and tossed you in the back of a limo while you walked down the street... I haven't showed up on-site for an interview without discussing the role and discussing money (in numeric terms, not vague ones) since I was 24. It's more common than not that our ranges don't overlap, and I find that out on the phone with minimal investment and inconvenience, not in-person after expending a lot of time and effort. (It helps both sides to discover that early.)

ssharp 11y ago

People should absolutely be respectful of their applicants' time. And applicants should use how they're treated during the application process as a signal for how they'll be treated as employees. One of the best interviews I had was very informal, was only with the hiring manager, and it was pretty obvious that there would be a good fit between myself and the company. I took the job and had no regrets over it. One of the worst interview processes I went through had me doing two rounds of phone interviews and then a half-day in-person consisting of four one-hour interviews with various people. The selection of people conducting the one-hour interviews were fair enough -- HR, hiring manager, a peer, and someone from a related department I'd have contact with but wouldn't work with frequently. But you could easily tell there was no organization behind what they were doing, unless their strategy was to have each of the persons doing the interview have the same exact conversations with me. This was at a Fortune 500 company and it became clear from the interview process that the culture would be extremely frustrating for me to work in. I think it's fair to follow a process like this to respect the time of your applications: resume cover -> screen -> phone interview -> in-person interview -> tests/samples -> hire And you drop people out of the funnel at every step. I also think it's best to keep your in-person interviews to two hours max, between however many people they need to talk to.

mtbcoder 11y ago
> tests/samples Technical tests are a double-edged sword. For candidates with little to no prior work experience (fresh out of uni for example), it makes sense. Unless serious question marks arose during the prior interviews, I find it disrespectful to play the "stump the candidate" game with candidates who come in with 10, 20+ years of experience. I'm not aware of any other industry that deploys a barrage of obscure technical tests on their candidates the way some companies do in IT.
- bdavisx 11y ago
  That's because you can get someone with 10 years of "experience" who can't pass FizzBuzz. Although trick questions and the like are bad, and a sign that you should avoid the company giving those questions in an interview.
bradleyboy 11y ago
The more intensive processes are a fine line to walk. It's easy to go overboard. I recently went through an interview process that was more on the intensive side and left feeling better about it because I knew the people I would potentially be working with had gone through that same process. It's harder, yes, but I felt the chances were higher that I would be working with more competent people on the other side.

haphazardeous 11y ago

Well said. I was once asked to do a almost 1 and a half day long coding test without even given any indication on how much money they're going to offer me and where exactly I would fit in the organisation. And they asked it after about 5 people spend an our interviewing and grilling me each. Seeing that I've got 8+ years experience in software development I thought this is just ridiculous.

sokoloff 11y ago
I agree that it's ridiculous, but would ask why did you do it then? It's not like they threw a black bag over your head and tossed you in the back of a limo while you walked down the street... I haven't showed up on-site for an interview without discussing the role and discussing money (in numeric terms, not vague ones) since I was 24. It's more common than not that our ranges don't overlap, and I find that out on the phone with minimal investment and inconvenience, not in-person after expending a lot of time and effort. (It helps both sides to discover that early.)