The question that raises from a process improvement perspective then is “were the first 3 rounds really effective tests?” Perhaps a better solution is not more interviews, but more focused interviews conducted by the people that actually have the knowledge and power to make the decision. (And if the knowledge and the power are divided among multiple people, another great improvement would be empowering the people with the knowledge.)
Google has done way more research on this topic than both you and I collectively and they settled in on 4 interviews being the sweet spot to get enough signal to be 86% confident, while not wasting any more of anyone’s time than needed chasing after single-point confidence improvements. In my experience, I agree with this. I’ve been through 6-round and 3-round (both to offer). Even as a candidate I guess I feel like i wanted that fourth round. Kinda hard to tell what a company culture is from just three meets. And after six rounds I was just freaking exhausted and didn’t really have a high opinion of that company-they couldn’t seem to figure out a clear mission/vision for their product and I thought their overly complicated and drawn-out interview process was a reflection of that.
The best predictor of how someone will perform in a job is a work sample test (29 percent). This entails giving candidates a sample piece of work, similar to that which they would do in the job, and assessing their performance at it.
Both articles linked are well worth the time to read. Hiring is a messy and inconvenient process for both companies and employees.
That strikes me as highly reflective of google’s position of power; from the employer’s perspective, the point where the diminishing returns are no longer worth it is related to the point where they’re losing too many applicants from interview exhaustion. If you’re not google, not offering the kind of pay and such that google does, your break-even point is likely much sooner.
Additionally, from the worker’s perspective, the only-3-interviews rule is an assertion of our power. And, as an added plus, if enough people adhere to it, it will shift that break-even point even for places like Google, and resist the shifting of that burden onto unpaid workers.
The article I posted pointed out that they’re trying to not waste the candidate’s time, as well. They used to do 12 fucking rounds of interviews—and because it’s Google, people tolerated that crap. One of my best friends is an old-school Googler that got in through that gauntlet.
Keep that in mind when you claim it’s an employer’s power play—in this case, it’s really not. More than four interviews, twelve, sure I can believe that. You should read about what some of the elite tier government special ops groups go through.
At this point we’re quibbling over a delta of one interview—I think we’re probably pretty close, or close enough to say “agree to disagree on the rest.”
The question that raises from a process improvement perspective then is “were the first 3 rounds really effective tests?” Perhaps a better solution is not more interviews, but more focused interviews conducted by the people that actually have the knowledge and power to make the decision. (And if the knowledge and the power are divided among multiple people, another great improvement would be empowering the people with the knowledge.)
Google has done way more research on this topic than both you and I collectively and they settled in on 4 interviews being the sweet spot to get enough signal to be 86% confident, while not wasting any more of anyone’s time than needed chasing after single-point confidence improvements. In my experience, I agree with this. I’ve been through 6-round and 3-round (both to offer). Even as a candidate I guess I feel like i wanted that fourth round. Kinda hard to tell what a company culture is from just three meets. And after six rounds I was just freaking exhausted and didn’t really have a high opinion of that company-they couldn’t seem to figure out a clear mission/vision for their product and I thought their overly complicated and drawn-out interview process was a reflection of that.
Google goes into more depth as to why the three-tech + 1 behavioral/cultural model works for them. They call it a work-sample test.
Both articles linked are well worth the time to read. Hiring is a messy and inconvenient process for both companies and employees.
That strikes me as highly reflective of google’s position of power; from the employer’s perspective, the point where the diminishing returns are no longer worth it is related to the point where they’re losing too many applicants from interview exhaustion. If you’re not google, not offering the kind of pay and such that google does, your break-even point is likely much sooner.
Additionally, from the worker’s perspective, the only-3-interviews rule is an assertion of our power. And, as an added plus, if enough people adhere to it, it will shift that break-even point even for places like Google, and resist the shifting of that burden onto unpaid workers.
The article I posted pointed out that they’re trying to not waste the candidate’s time, as well. They used to do 12 fucking rounds of interviews—and because it’s Google, people tolerated that crap. One of my best friends is an old-school Googler that got in through that gauntlet.
Keep that in mind when you claim it’s an employer’s power play—in this case, it’s really not. More than four interviews, twelve, sure I can believe that. You should read about what some of the elite tier government special ops groups go through.
At this point we’re quibbling over a delta of one interview—I think we’re probably pretty close, or close enough to say “agree to disagree on the rest.”
Cheers.