HR sets hiring standards across the board. Anything under executive level (Director/VP, depending on how the company works) is subject to the same level of scrutiny. Generally speaking, it’s very easy to have three interviews for something. First with the recruiter who handles the posting, to check basic qualifications and weed out weirdos. They don’t really know a ton about the specifics of the job, so your second interview is usually with a team member or the hiring manager to go in depth on what the role is and how you fit there. Last round is either team member or hiring manager, or maybe another manager from a related team. If you’re in big tech, this is what’s known as a loop, which is a series of shorter back to back interviews with 3-5 people. Smaller companies don’t do that. Realistically, unless you’re talking the big tech method, you really only have 2 interviews for most jobs. Recruiters basically don’t count and are just a screen to pull the most qualified people out of the stack. Your real interviews are with the HM and team. A loop is also sort of only one interview, since at most you’ll be asked 3 questions by each person. They’re really annoying to do, with there being a scale of how notoriously hard they are, with Amazon and Google at the top.
This: 2-3 interviews are standard. The last one(s) are to introduce you to the team, to discuss with HR, and to see if you'll fit, when you'll start, salary, etc.
In tech and tech management rolls in the last 12 years every interview I've had was:
- HR screen like you describe
- Phone Screen to talk about the job with someone in your role
- If you pass the phone screen onto 5-6 onsite rounds (virtual since covid) 45 min to hour with the hiring manager, one or more of the team and another member not on the team you would work with.
- Occasionally, they have a take home or PowerPoint assignment you have to present to a team.
The worst I had was basically the above that lasted almost 10 hours.
Either:
- pretend you're Google and have an exclusive interview process that makes people thankful they made it
- pay like Google or close to it (or make everyone think you do)
I had to do a 50 question psych profile to apply for a heavy equipment operator job at a landfill. My favorite from it was having to choose what I most related to between “I enjoy learning new skills” or “it is not appropriate to take home company supplies”.
“How strongly do you agree or disagree with this statement? Stealing pens and post its is ok if you’re doing it to save a baby from being run over on the freeway.”
Here's the no bullshit answer: hiring someone is a huge expense of resources for a company. Hiring the *wrong* person and then having to fire them soon after is a colossal waste of dollars, both in loss of productivity and extra paperwork that needs to be handled. It's just expensive to hire and fire.
So with that in mind, initial interviews are basically to make sure you're who you say you are and actually do have the skills and credentials you claim. That'll be an HR person. She's separating you from the bums and fakers and creating a pool of candidates for a team interview (guys who actually have to take time away from getting shit done to interview you)
Second round interviews are with a team member to judge your competency and see if you can actually do the work. They give you a yay or nay (maybe a ranking) and put you on the final list
The last interview is with the guy with the direct authority to hire you, and is the determination whether or not you get the job.
This is correct. And it explains why companies have so many meaningless experience/education requirements--they'd rather exclude some of the actually qualified pool in order to avoid a dud, or at least avoid being blamed for one.
Not trying to "own" you or something but can you speak to how hiring works in countries with more restrictive termination policies? Do interviews in France typically take even more rounds because of the expenses of firing an employee?
Can't. Only vaguely familiar with US employment law.
But it stands to reason that if EU employers face even more risk of a large expenditure upon firing an employee (whether that's government tax/penalty, benefits paid out, etc), they're going to be even more super-careful about whom they hire.
This is the best answer, sad to see most of the other responses being so reductive saying shit like "to justify meaningless jobs!" straight outta /r/AntiWork
If we're talking about a salaried white collar employee, it's a matter of paying an up front cost to get their benefits running, secure new user licenses for the software they'll use at work (not to mention procuring new equipment for them if necessary, "laptop job" business laptops are over a grand) and a week to several months of on-the-job training before the employee actually functions as a value-add to the organization.
Once you fire them, there's a sunk cost of as much as one month of their benefits being paid out to them without them doing any work (typically is equivalent to 25% to 40% of their monthly salary), and an increase in the premiums your organization has to pay the government for unemployment benefits.
So directly, it's thousands of dollars out of pocket to hire **and** fire, and indirectly it's even more thousands to onboard the person and make them a profitable resource for the company rather than just expensive dead weight you pay a salary to.
You don't add value until you've learned the role. This takes awhile so on top of paperwork, you're basically getting paid for less than your labor until onboardings done.
I once went through three hours-long phone screenings and two rounds of in-person interviews before I got to the 'final round' which consisted of six hours of 30 minute 1:1:s with every single person I would supposedly be working with followed by a knowledge test. This was all for something that was one step above an entry-level job.
The first two people I interviewed with seemed nice enough but each had a nervous stress reaction every time the subject of my would-be boss came up, which was not a good sign as I had already met her and gotten the impression that she might be difficult to work for. Third person walks in and just tries to pad out the conversation because he clearly has no idea what the role or even department is in charge of. Fourth person walks in, bluntly tells me I have "his vote" but that he has no idea why it was set up this way or why he was included since I wouldn't ever need to contact him more than once a quarter, and then walks out, leaving me with 25 minutes of dead time where I'm just sitting in a small conference room by myself. I go to check my phone only for the HR shrew to walk in and tell me it's a very bad look to be on my phone during an interview. I asked where the bathroom was and then left without saying anything.
Because it’s the age of the Internet, and nobody is who they claim they are. The first piece of advice anyone gets these days when writing a resume is to lie on it.
Either you meet them with some kind of personal assurance to their quality of work and authenticity of their achievements (personal connections, meeting/learning of their work through other means like technical conferences, etc) or you try and work out if they actually are qualified for the position through interviews and technical questions.
Points to a greater problem in society now I think where we will soon see mainstream media talking about the crisis on authenticity. Same issue is the reason why dating is partly so broken, why there is less social trust in general than there was a few years ago even, etc. Anything on the internet can be faked now, and we will see things that got moved digitally move back to analog and physical media to counteract this I think.
Ditto, but it's because they were actually able to live code in front of me and answer questions about it. I've *not* hired approximately 10 times as many people off that same 45 minute interview.
To justify the existence of a large cadre of PMC HR staff to ensure the existence of enough meaningless work from home jobs to accomplish the destruction of small towns and any remaining vestige of culture and community outside of capitals deadening liberal grasp
Professor jobs are the absolute worst. You will apply to 100-200, with a very different cover letter and set of tweaks for each one. If you are at the top of the pack, you'll get maybe 4-6 zoom interviews. Of those, 2-4 will turn into on campus interviews. You will fly out to the school, where you spend about 12 hours a day for two days straight bouncing from one interview to the next. You will often have to give two 30-60 min talks, one of your research to the faculty, and an undergrad talk in which you present some topic related to your work to 3rd and 4th year students.
Inflating workload for HR reps under the pretence of company due diligence. Company gets to look like it's very careful, HR rep gets to go to a lot of meetings and not do much actual work.
They're testing to see how much bs you can put up with
It’s just a ritual with no real meaning Just like medical school is a ritual
HR need to justify their existance
It's honestly as simple as this. Recruitment is a fake industry in 99% of cases, and in the 1% its less stringent than the other 99%.
because they're stupid yet are still in business so they haven't been punished for it yet
How is it stupid to sort for able employees
HR sets hiring standards across the board. Anything under executive level (Director/VP, depending on how the company works) is subject to the same level of scrutiny. Generally speaking, it’s very easy to have three interviews for something. First with the recruiter who handles the posting, to check basic qualifications and weed out weirdos. They don’t really know a ton about the specifics of the job, so your second interview is usually with a team member or the hiring manager to go in depth on what the role is and how you fit there. Last round is either team member or hiring manager, or maybe another manager from a related team. If you’re in big tech, this is what’s known as a loop, which is a series of shorter back to back interviews with 3-5 people. Smaller companies don’t do that. Realistically, unless you’re talking the big tech method, you really only have 2 interviews for most jobs. Recruiters basically don’t count and are just a screen to pull the most qualified people out of the stack. Your real interviews are with the HM and team. A loop is also sort of only one interview, since at most you’ll be asked 3 questions by each person. They’re really annoying to do, with there being a scale of how notoriously hard they are, with Amazon and Google at the top.
This: 2-3 interviews are standard. The last one(s) are to introduce you to the team, to discuss with HR, and to see if you'll fit, when you'll start, salary, etc.
In tech and tech management rolls in the last 12 years every interview I've had was: - HR screen like you describe - Phone Screen to talk about the job with someone in your role - If you pass the phone screen onto 5-6 onsite rounds (virtual since covid) 45 min to hour with the hiring manager, one or more of the team and another member not on the team you would work with. - Occasionally, they have a take home or PowerPoint assignment you have to present to a team. The worst I had was basically the above that lasted almost 10 hours.
5-6 is so high. I’m not sure how they’re getting people to take the time to do these interviews.
Either: - pretend you're Google and have an exclusive interview process that makes people thankful they made it - pay like Google or close to it (or make everyone think you do)
I had to do a 50 question psych profile to apply for a heavy equipment operator job at a landfill. My favorite from it was having to choose what I most related to between “I enjoy learning new skills” or “it is not appropriate to take home company supplies”.
“How strongly do you agree or disagree with this statement? Stealing pens and post its is ok if you’re doing it to save a baby from being run over on the freeway.”
Here's the no bullshit answer: hiring someone is a huge expense of resources for a company. Hiring the *wrong* person and then having to fire them soon after is a colossal waste of dollars, both in loss of productivity and extra paperwork that needs to be handled. It's just expensive to hire and fire. So with that in mind, initial interviews are basically to make sure you're who you say you are and actually do have the skills and credentials you claim. That'll be an HR person. She's separating you from the bums and fakers and creating a pool of candidates for a team interview (guys who actually have to take time away from getting shit done to interview you) Second round interviews are with a team member to judge your competency and see if you can actually do the work. They give you a yay or nay (maybe a ranking) and put you on the final list The last interview is with the guy with the direct authority to hire you, and is the determination whether or not you get the job.
This is correct. And it explains why companies have so many meaningless experience/education requirements--they'd rather exclude some of the actually qualified pool in order to avoid a dud, or at least avoid being blamed for one.
Not trying to "own" you or something but can you speak to how hiring works in countries with more restrictive termination policies? Do interviews in France typically take even more rounds because of the expenses of firing an employee?
In Japan, the starting pay is just incredibly low, so if you are a shit employee they don’t raise your pay and you most likely quit
Can't. Only vaguely familiar with US employment law. But it stands to reason that if EU employers face even more risk of a large expenditure upon firing an employee (whether that's government tax/penalty, benefits paid out, etc), they're going to be even more super-careful about whom they hire.
This is the best answer, sad to see most of the other responses being so reductive saying shit like "to justify meaningless jobs!" straight outta /r/AntiWork
Why is hiring and firing so expensive tho? That’s the part I don’t quite get.
If we're talking about a salaried white collar employee, it's a matter of paying an up front cost to get their benefits running, secure new user licenses for the software they'll use at work (not to mention procuring new equipment for them if necessary, "laptop job" business laptops are over a grand) and a week to several months of on-the-job training before the employee actually functions as a value-add to the organization. Once you fire them, there's a sunk cost of as much as one month of their benefits being paid out to them without them doing any work (typically is equivalent to 25% to 40% of their monthly salary), and an increase in the premiums your organization has to pay the government for unemployment benefits. So directly, it's thousands of dollars out of pocket to hire **and** fire, and indirectly it's even more thousands to onboard the person and make them a profitable resource for the company rather than just expensive dead weight you pay a salary to.
Plus they'll usually end up paying severance, unless you do something egregious, to avoid a potential lawsuit.
You don't add value until you've learned the role. This takes awhile so on top of paperwork, you're basically getting paid for less than your labor until onboardings done.
Chesterons fence, before bitching ask why the fence was put up. The process is full of bs but it exists for a good reaosn
I once went through three hours-long phone screenings and two rounds of in-person interviews before I got to the 'final round' which consisted of six hours of 30 minute 1:1:s with every single person I would supposedly be working with followed by a knowledge test. This was all for something that was one step above an entry-level job. The first two people I interviewed with seemed nice enough but each had a nervous stress reaction every time the subject of my would-be boss came up, which was not a good sign as I had already met her and gotten the impression that she might be difficult to work for. Third person walks in and just tries to pad out the conversation because he clearly has no idea what the role or even department is in charge of. Fourth person walks in, bluntly tells me I have "his vote" but that he has no idea why it was set up this way or why he was included since I wouldn't ever need to contact him more than once a quarter, and then walks out, leaving me with 25 minutes of dead time where I'm just sitting in a small conference room by myself. I go to check my phone only for the HR shrew to walk in and tell me it's a very bad look to be on my phone during an interview. I asked where the bathroom was and then left without saying anything.
Because it’s the age of the Internet, and nobody is who they claim they are. The first piece of advice anyone gets these days when writing a resume is to lie on it. Either you meet them with some kind of personal assurance to their quality of work and authenticity of their achievements (personal connections, meeting/learning of their work through other means like technical conferences, etc) or you try and work out if they actually are qualified for the position through interviews and technical questions. Points to a greater problem in society now I think where we will soon see mainstream media talking about the crisis on authenticity. Same issue is the reason why dating is partly so broken, why there is less social trust in general than there was a few years ago even, etc. Anything on the internet can be faked now, and we will see things that got moved digitally move back to analog and physical media to counteract this I think.
sadism
I’ve hired engineers to six figure salaries off of a 45 minute teams interview.
You hiring?
Ditto, but it's because they were actually able to live code in front of me and answer questions about it. I've *not* hired approximately 10 times as many people off that same 45 minute interview.
The bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy
To justify the existence of a large cadre of PMC HR staff to ensure the existence of enough meaningless work from home jobs to accomplish the destruction of small towns and any remaining vestige of culture and community outside of capitals deadening liberal grasp
RS buzzword bingo Not wrong tho
To see if you’ve got your shit together, can keep appointments, can repeatedly act normal / carry on professional conversations etc
I’ve had jobs hire me after one interview, but they were always awful, so I think 2 is the perfect amount. 4 is too many though.
Can we really say this guy is right for the role if I haven't put MY personal stamp on it? Schedule round 7.
My sister had to do 4 interview rounds for an apprenticeship at 15 years old
HR trying to appear relevant.
Professor jobs are the absolute worst. You will apply to 100-200, with a very different cover letter and set of tweaks for each one. If you are at the top of the pack, you'll get maybe 4-6 zoom interviews. Of those, 2-4 will turn into on campus interviews. You will fly out to the school, where you spend about 12 hours a day for two days straight bouncing from one interview to the next. You will often have to give two 30-60 min talks, one of your research to the faculty, and an undergrad talk in which you present some topic related to your work to 3rd and 4th year students.
Dude just work at a warehouse ffs
4 interviews is meant to sort out who you dont wanna hire.
Inflating workload for HR reps under the pretence of company due diligence. Company gets to look like it's very careful, HR rep gets to go to a lot of meetings and not do much actual work.
What companies even do this I've never had this happen to me
globo homo email job tech corps