As a hiring manager, I came into this article thinking "Oh dear, more griping about interview techniques that are in fact very necessary and justified."
Happily, I was altogether mistaken! These are all pretty solidly on the money.
Here's a few thoughts. (Bear in mind, I mostly interview for our internship program, so I deal with a lot of very very very JUNIOR applicants.)
Whiteboard interviews
Yeah, nope. I still want to see coding in the final interview, but it needs to be practical. (What exactly I do for this isn't something I publish, for practical reasons.) Code golfing really doesn't have a place in hiring.
Contract to hire
If we accept an applicant to the internship program, they're under contract for the entire duration of the internship. We expect them to complete it, and we expect to do our part to make that possible.
If you're not able to commit to a new hire, you probably shouldn't be hiring them.
More than 3 interviews
Two interviews here: phone and in-person. I've never needed more. Honestly, I can't even imagine doing three!
Culture fit interviews
Naturally, I want to make sure an applicant is going to be a positive addition to the environment, but our cultural expectations (actually our Code of Conduct) is formalized in writing. Everything else tends to evolve as people come and go, so not much "cultural" stuff comes up in interviews. If you can do the work, you're good.
That said, I do usually bring development team leaders along to the final interview, for a variety of reasons. And yes, one is to catch out discriminatory behavior in advance; we're a diverse company, and on occasion, we've had to turn down an applicant because of overtly bigoted behavior towards certain team members.
Group interviews
You seem to be describing interviews where multiple applicants are present at once...which I wouldn't condone in a million years!
I do believe in having 2-3 interviewers in a final interview, simply because our collective insight allows us both to screen the applicant better and to answer questions more effectively. I've had some top-rate co-interviewers over the years!
Endurance interviews
Um, no. Final interviews are naturally intense enough already, let's not add exhaustion.
As an aside, I completely understand why interviews need to be fairly nerve-wracking experiences: they get the candidate off-script (which we need!) I always account for nerves in terms of responses and coding ability, and I never hold it against someone.
Ironically, the candidates who were the most nervous during final interview invariably proved themselves to be our best developers! They've all moved on to mid-level development positions at other software firms, and several have said that their experience interviewing with us because invaluable experiences.
HR Screens
When you're wading through a mush pile of candidates, you do need to screen. That's the entire point of a resume.
With that said, my criteria are mainly centered around "can they stick with this?" If I'm seeing someone switching fast-food jobs every two months in the same area (seen it), or citing experience from seven jobs but checking "no" on permission for us to contact any of them, huge red flags go up.
Another pet peeve is if someone can't bother to read our simple and clearly delineated job application instructions. I can't tell you how many people don't both to even fill out the required application, and just email a resume to my personal inbox. I'll politely refer them to the instructions once, but I don't lift a finger on considering them until they follow the instructions.
After all, if someone can't follow three simple, clearly-printed steps, how can I expect them to pay attention to specs, workflows, or documentation? (Answer: I can't. I've tested it.)
For the record, I usually phone interview about three quarters of the complete applications I get.
No senior leadership in the interviews
I'm the CEO and Lead Developer, and I'm at every final interview. I also bring along one or two members of development leadership, when I can.
Reluctance to discuss pay or benefits
Up front. Not only is this clearly outlined on the website, but we also cover it in both the phone and final interviews.
Required in-person interviews
I do like in-person interviews when I can arrange them. Video conference interviews can be fraught with technical issues, and you still lose some of that real-person-interaction. (I have a background in communication, and deeply appreciate the entire non-verbal experience...much of which is lost over video chat.)
However, I'm not opposed to remote interviews when necessary! Sometimes that's just what works best for someone, and we're more than willing to oblige.
P.S. We are, in fact, 100% remote, and we're good at it! Our program graduates always remark on that fact. But we also encourage (but don't require) face-to-face interaction when it's possible, such as when two interns go to the same university. We've voluntarily had spec planning meetings in person, and have hosted a number of company get-togethers.
As a hiring manager, I came into this article thinking "Oh dear, more griping about interview techniques that are in fact very necessary and justified."
Happily, I was altogether mistaken! These are all pretty solidly on the money.
Here's a few thoughts. (Bear in mind, I mostly interview for our internship program, so I deal with a lot of very very very JUNIOR applicants.)
Yeah, nope. I still want to see coding in the final interview, but it needs to be practical. (What exactly I do for this isn't something I publish, for practical reasons.) Code golfing really doesn't have a place in hiring.
If we accept an applicant to the internship program, they're under contract for the entire duration of the internship. We expect them to complete it, and we expect to do our part to make that possible.
If you're not able to commit to a new hire, you probably shouldn't be hiring them.
Two interviews here: phone and in-person. I've never needed more. Honestly, I can't even imagine doing three!
Naturally, I want to make sure an applicant is going to be a positive addition to the environment, but our cultural expectations (actually our Code of Conduct) is formalized in writing. Everything else tends to evolve as people come and go, so not much "cultural" stuff comes up in interviews. If you can do the work, you're good.
That said, I do usually bring development team leaders along to the final interview, for a variety of reasons. And yes, one is to catch out discriminatory behavior in advance; we're a diverse company, and on occasion, we've had to turn down an applicant because of overtly bigoted behavior towards certain team members.
You seem to be describing interviews where multiple applicants are present at once...which I wouldn't condone in a million years!
I do believe in having 2-3 interviewers in a final interview, simply because our collective insight allows us both to screen the applicant better and to answer questions more effectively. I've had some top-rate co-interviewers over the years!
Um, no. Final interviews are naturally intense enough already, let's not add exhaustion.
As an aside, I completely understand why interviews need to be fairly nerve-wracking experiences: they get the candidate off-script (which we need!) I always account for nerves in terms of responses and coding ability, and I never hold it against someone.
Ironically, the candidates who were the most nervous during final interview invariably proved themselves to be our best developers! They've all moved on to mid-level development positions at other software firms, and several have said that their experience interviewing with us because invaluable experiences.
When you're wading through a mush pile of candidates, you do need to screen. That's the entire point of a resume.
With that said, my criteria are mainly centered around "can they stick with this?" If I'm seeing someone switching fast-food jobs every two months in the same area (seen it), or citing experience from seven jobs but checking "no" on permission for us to contact any of them, huge red flags go up.
Another pet peeve is if someone can't bother to read our simple and clearly delineated job application instructions. I can't tell you how many people don't both to even fill out the required application, and just email a resume to my personal inbox. I'll politely refer them to the instructions once, but I don't lift a finger on considering them until they follow the instructions.
After all, if someone can't follow three simple, clearly-printed steps, how can I expect them to pay attention to specs, workflows, or documentation? (Answer: I can't. I've tested it.)
For the record, I usually phone interview about three quarters of the complete applications I get.
I'm the CEO and Lead Developer, and I'm at every final interview. I also bring along one or two members of development leadership, when I can.
Up front. Not only is this clearly outlined on the website, but we also cover it in both the phone and final interviews.
I do like in-person interviews when I can arrange them. Video conference interviews can be fraught with technical issues, and you still lose some of that real-person-interaction. (I have a background in communication, and deeply appreciate the entire non-verbal experience...much of which is lost over video chat.)
However, I'm not opposed to remote interviews when necessary! Sometimes that's just what works best for someone, and we're more than willing to oblige.
P.S. We are, in fact, 100% remote, and we're good at it! Our program graduates always remark on that fact. But we also encourage (but don't require) face-to-face interaction when it's possible, such as when two interns go to the same university. We've voluntarily had spec planning meetings in person, and have hosted a number of company get-togethers.
Glad to hear I wasn't too far off the mark!