How do you know it works?
> I don’t want to hire the wrong person, it’s expensive and it makes my job awful for a while.
There we are. It is all about you.
No need to say anything else - your life is all about you, so of course if it works for you, 'it works'.
Filtering early is best for everyone. If that means more rounds of interviews to be sure, that's what I'm going to do. I do my best to schedule around candidates and I'm forthcoming about the process during the first call but we try hard to be thorough because we want this to work well for everyone. Would you rather be hired and then fired quickly because we didn't realize there was a misalignment? I wouldn't.
The fact that your knee jerk reaction to a misalignment is firing someone rather than mentoring them and aligning them with the org speaks volumes about your management style… And managers wonder why they have such a hard time hiring or retaining people right now…
This is of course when they're not busy abusing someone on a visa to make them do more work than a human should have to do.
I definitely spend less time per person, trying to find juniors. You have to because t What you're looking for is different. My only goal for hiring junior engineers is to find out if they know enough to not drown and if I think they're willing and able to learn fast. That takes less time and the risk is generally less because my expectations are lower and so is the compensation.
It's been a while since I hired junior people though. The roles I take are always in early phase startups and I don't have budget for people who need on-the-job training.
Interviews may be the best tool available while searching for unknown talent, but that does not mean they are a good tool. The process is artificial, no matter how much effort is put into framing it otherwise. Even the most honest interviewee will have difficulty behaving as they would in a normal working environment, while many are more than willing to be actors playing a part. Likewise, interviewers are interacting with the interviewee in an unnatural way and are making judgements about the interviewee in a fashion different from making a judgement of a colleague.
Even if one could somehow get beyond that artificiality, what sort of impression does it leave the candidate with? There is a world of a difference between working for a company that is careful and one that is bureaucratic, one that is focussed upon making sound decisions and one that simply follows process. It can also leave the impression that key decision makers are difficult to access, making it more difficult to get the actual meat of the work done.
As for competing for the best employees, a drawn out process doesn't benefit anyone and is the least detrimental to companies that offer a genuine competitive advantage. Keep in mind, that candidate may already be part way through the interview process at another company (or even offered a position) by the time an they are offered the first interview at your company. While both parties form impressions of the other during the interview, the candidate will gain more insight about the company's functioning in how they handle the hiring process than the other way around.
Hired and fired quickly is better because when I have to dedicate weeks or a month of unpaid, uncompensated time to your process then I'm the one losing. You are already getting paid for putting in the work of interviewing me. If your team is stretched so thin that you need to put your time at a premium, that's a problem with your process not having enough throughput.
How many people do you reject to fill one position? How many are "filtered" at later stages to fill one position?
I hire in APAC too. Indian engineers are giving 60-90 day notices now and that's contractual. Two candidates, using your model, could easily take up a year. (Hiring in APAC take a long time already.)
I can only assume you've had some bad experiences lately but your personal bias has created a really bad mental model for you that would be a net negative for everyone.
This is a lie that everyone tells themselves to make them feel secure and safe.
The best interview is working with the person. Do a few basic interviews for competency, give them a 2 week - month long 1099 contract and put them on guard rails for the contract duration.
Their daily work isn't just about whether they can jump through time-based hoops or answer basic questions. No one is going to know whether it is a mutual match until the person gets into the codebase and start working.
Plenty of great engineers have "performance problems" not because they are bad engineers but because of problems an interview will never expose or detect like a bad teammate or lead match causing disagreements, a bad codebase, poor planning that only builds tech debt, bad business plan, disagreement on business direction, etc.
The idea that an interview can filter good or bad engineers is laughable. The most you can determine from an interview, regardless of how many flaming hoops and balls the candidate bounces off their nose, is whether they know how to code and _probably_ know what you need them to know.
When I interview I don't even mention code or technical stuff (that is for someone else to ask) and I am able to learn quite a bit about a person and if they would be a good fit. Just because you can't doesn't mean other people can't.
Because the hallways aren't empty.
If a less prestigious company with worse compensation tries the same thing, then they will quickly discover they can’t hire anyone. It will be self-correcting.
If the company in question is growing its business and the employees and customers are happy, then whatever they are doing is working, at least for now. I'm not sure there is a much better way to measure it.
When I joined NVidia they had me through two phone screens (although they originally planned for three), followed by an onsite with seven different interviewers back to back on the same day. It wasn't fun, but it wasn't the end of the world either.
When I was a hiring manager at Qualcomm we would typically do a phone screen followed by an onsite with maybe four one-hour interviews back to back and there was rarely any disagreement on whether the candidate made the cut or not, so I would argue that it was sufficient.
