Two interviews are enough for hiring
My most provocative opinion about hiring in IT is that only one technical interview and one general interview are required, and they should last no more than an hour each. I believe that if the hiring process becomes more protracted, then it is not only useless, but also counterproductive.
Of course, such a concise hiring scheme is much easier to implement, and it takes less time, but there are other, less obvious advantages.
"When everyone is responsible, no one is responsible."
Interviewers are much more careful about choosing the right questions when they realize that no one else will evaluate a candidate on the same dimensions. Their decisions gain more weight, because if it is not possible to collect enough information to make a conclusion about the candidate, no one will insure and fill in the missing information.
Introducing additional interviews, whether technical or general, only reduces the likelihood that the necessary information will be obtained – after all, no one is specifically responsible for gathering the information on the basis of which the decision will be made.
When looking for people for high positions, the best candidates will most likely not have the patience to go through a long, drawn-out selection process. A heavy-handed hiring scheme repels the very people the company would like to get (i.e., those who can afford to be picky when choosing an employer).
Many people think that by delaying the hiring process, they will be able to ensure that they have the highest level candidates, but in fact, they inadvertently choose the most desperate, with an increased tolerance for stupid demands and red tape. Do you need such programmers for the development of the organization?
In my experience, people form a certain attitude towards the candidate in the early stages of interviews (or even before they begin). By adopting an abbreviated recruitment scheme, we officially recognize the existence of this unofficial phenomenon.
This is especially pronounced in large companies: the hiring manager selects several candidates for himself in advance (for example, they were recommended by someone from the team, perhaps even the manager himself, or they have a good portfolio) and has a strong tendency to choose those who caught his attention even before the start of the interview chain. Delaying the hiring process is a thinly disguised attempt to retouch this bias with an "objective" selection scheme, even though the manager is likely to ignore or challenge the result if it contradicts his personal preferences.
This is not to say that I think this approach to the selection of candidates is reasonable or acceptable. It's just that I doubt that adding additional steps will somehow help get rid of bias. For that matter, these additional stages only further distort the picture, as the choice narrows down to a circle of candidates who can afford to deviate from their usual routine for a long time and spend a lot of time on a series of conversations with the selection committee (and these are usually candidates from privileged backgrounds).
I was prompted to this position by my experience as a hiring manager in one of the previous companies. At first, it was like this: for employees on a permanent basis, we conducted a long series of interviews, and for interns - a significantly shortened version (one technical interview and one general interview). The original explanation for this order was that when hiring interns, "the rates are not so high," which means that the hiring process can be built with less "scrupulousness."
In reality, however, we found that the intern recruitment scheme was able to select outstanding candidates, despite the fact that we were supposed to lower the standards for it. And then we thought: why not try this approach for all vacancies, not only interns?
This transition did not happen instantly. We changed the hiring scheme gradually, sweeping away one stage from a series of interviews with each new vacancy. In the end, we came up with one technical interview and one general interview (that is, what we had already practiced with interns). With each new step in simplifying the scheme, we realized that there was no need for the additional step that we had eliminated.
Of course, such a concise hiring scheme is much easier to implement, and it takes less time, but there are other, less obvious advantages.
More effective interviews
"When everyone is responsible, no one is responsible."
Interviewers are much more careful about choosing the right questions when they realize that no one else will evaluate a candidate on the same dimensions. Their decisions gain more weight, because if it is not possible to collect enough information to make a conclusion about the candidate, no one will insure and fill in the missing information.
Introducing additional interviews, whether technical or general, only reduces the likelihood that the necessary information will be obtained – after all, no one is specifically responsible for gathering the information on the basis of which the decision will be made.
Attracting good senior specialists
When looking for people for high positions, the best candidates will most likely not have the patience to go through a long, drawn-out selection process. A heavy-handed hiring scheme repels the very people the company would like to get (i.e., those who can afford to be picky when choosing an employer).
Many people think that by delaying the hiring process, they will be able to ensure that they have the highest level candidates, but in fact, they inadvertently choose the most desperate, with an increased tolerance for stupid demands and red tape. Do you need such programmers for the development of the organization?
Bias and preferences
In my experience, people form a certain attitude towards the candidate in the early stages of interviews (or even before they begin). By adopting an abbreviated recruitment scheme, we officially recognize the existence of this unofficial phenomenon.
This is especially pronounced in large companies: the hiring manager selects several candidates for himself in advance (for example, they were recommended by someone from the team, perhaps even the manager himself, or they have a good portfolio) and has a strong tendency to choose those who caught his attention even before the start of the interview chain. Delaying the hiring process is a thinly disguised attempt to retouch this bias with an "objective" selection scheme, even though the manager is likely to ignore or challenge the result if it contradicts his personal preferences.
This is not to say that I think this approach to the selection of candidates is reasonable or acceptable. It's just that I doubt that adding additional steps will somehow help get rid of bias. For that matter, these additional stages only further distort the picture, as the choice narrows down to a circle of candidates who can afford to deviate from their usual routine for a long time and spend a lot of time on a series of conversations with the selection committee (and these are usually candidates from privileged backgrounds).
How we came to this
I was prompted to this position by my experience as a hiring manager in one of the previous companies. At first, it was like this: for employees on a permanent basis, we conducted a long series of interviews, and for interns - a significantly shortened version (one technical interview and one general interview). The original explanation for this order was that when hiring interns, "the rates are not so high," which means that the hiring process can be built with less "scrupulousness."
In reality, however, we found that the intern recruitment scheme was able to select outstanding candidates, despite the fact that we were supposed to lower the standards for it. And then we thought: why not try this approach for all vacancies, not only interns?
This transition did not happen instantly. We changed the hiring scheme gradually, sweeping away one stage from a series of interviews with each new vacancy. In the end, we came up with one technical interview and one general interview (that is, what we had already practiced with interns). With each new step in simplifying the scheme, we realized that there was no need for the additional step that we had eliminated.
English
Russian
French
Spanish
Portuguese
Deutsch
Turkish
Dutch
Italiano
Arabic
Romaian
Portuguese (Brazil)
