r/interviews • u/docjagr • 1d ago

Interviews suck

I had an interview Tuesday for a position in a company that my background, experience, and education wildly exceeded the qualifications for. I would not normally say that, but in this case, it is true.

The interview was only 30 minutes and it was mostly the hiring manager being surprised by how qualified I am and shocked how I was self motivated to learn so many things on my own.

The hiring manager had a hard stop at 30 minutes and basically hung up. He said I would hear more from the recruiter.

I send the normal "thank you" email to the hiring manager and follow up with the recruiter (like the hiring manager said to do) to find out when I would hear more and neither responded.

It is probably over, and that is fine. What annoys me is the lack of genuine common courtesy with just a simple acknowledgement of any kind.

Just venting. Anyone else have a similar story?

98 Upvotes

95% Upvoted

31 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

8

u/DoucheNozzle1163 1d ago

Whenever I was running a team and setting up interviews, I always set a hard limit of 30 minutes for myself and other team members (absolute Max of 4 people) doing the interview. If you can't decide a candidate has the right experience & "fit" for a position in 30 minutes, you shouldn't be doing interviews!

This hours long, multi-person, multi-round horse shit, is low quality managers/HR trying to be flex, overbearing, show who's "in-charge", and being CYA to the extreme.

It wastes everyone's time for little ROI.

1

u/JustMe39908 1d ago

It probably depends very much on the position and the company. We have a four round process. And have a candidate going from round 3 to 4. Highly technical field, highly technical role requiring knowledge, insight, and communication skills.

The current candidate:

Round 1: screener -- strong pass. Round 2: Hiring Manager (1st time HM) -- strong pass. Round 3: panel. 1 strong pass, 1 pass, hiring manager went to weak pass, 2 weak No's (the two most experienced members of the panel). The weak No's identified a couple of deficiencies in the candidate that could be a long-term detriment. Discussed potential reasons for the deficiencies and a decision was made to bring the candidate in for the 4th round (all day, on-site). People were specifically tasked to probe the deficiencies.

We would not have received the information we needed with a single 30 minute interview.

5

u/DoucheNozzle1163 1d ago

Trust me, I'm in extremely complicated, nuanced, and difficult technology sector as well. But, of course if you go through enough rounds, with enough people, you'll always find deficiencies. Hell, add 2 or 3 more rounds, you''l be positive to find "something" even bigger to not like.

You're chasing "perfection" and getting diminishing returns. But, hey.... keep patting yourself on the back with what a great process you have!

1

u/JustMe39908 1d ago

Working great so far.

In another organization I was in, HM's had more process flexibility. Some went with the 30 minutes and out. Others (including me) went with a process similar to my current organization. Results? The organizations with more extensive processes out performed the ones with a quick process. They also had zero people put on PIPs, higher retention rates, and more people promoted into leadership. Heck hires from the organizations with the extensive processes basically took over the parts that didn't.

If it is working for you, great. But the process I have been using for years has been very successful for me and the organizations I have been in. I won't criticize yours without data. No need to patronize me without any data.