Somewhat of a venting post, though I will try to maintain a constructive tone.
Today I was contacted by a young company, a Startup that has survived the early years and now seeks to expand their team.
So far, so good.
The recruiter was exquisite explaining both the current situation and what are they specifically looking for.
Then she explained their hiring process:
- [✅] initial HR call
- Cultural fit: 1h conversation
- First Tech Interview: 1h tech conversation
- 30 min call with the CTO
- Code assignment: between 3 and 8 hours - take - home assigment (up to the candidate)
- 1h Code Review with the Teach lead discussing the solution.
- Final interview with the team. (30m ~ 1h)
Look, I get it. Finding the right team fit is crucial. But seriously, this marathon of a process feels like it could do more harm than good.
I just didn't start this road.
These kind of processes may work for those shiny FANG-level companies. In this case, this particular company wasn't offering a salary over-the-top.
Possible changes: remove the code assignment and its review.
initial HR call
Cultural fit: 1h conversation
First Tech Interview: 1h tech conversation
30 min call with the CTO
- Code assignment: between 3 and 8 hours - take - home assigment (up to the candidate)
- 1h Code Review with the Teach lead discussing the solution.
- Final interview with the team. (30m ~ 1h)
+ You're IN; just a friendly conversation with the team, not part of the process.
Does this hiring process seem like the usual approach to you?
--
Thanks for reading 💛.
Latest comments (30)
I couldn't find any specific reports of issues related to the Acer Aspire 5 with the keywords "Gangsta Paradise CapCut Template." It's possible that there are no known issues associated with this laptop in relation to that template. If you have a specific problem, it's best to provide more details for a more accurate response or seek help from Acer support forums.
Certainly! Some startups have unconventional hiring processes that might not be the best fit for everyone. It's important to focus on finding the right fit for your career goals and lifestyle, just like choosing the best home workouts for women that align with your fitness needs and preferences. Prioritize a hiring process that values your time and skills.
LongboardInsider, a unique startup in the skateboarding industry, takes an unconventional approach to hiring. Their process includes a skateboarding skills test, a creativity challenge where applicants design their own skateboard deck, and a casual interview at a local skate park. While unconventional, this process aligns with their brand's spirit, attracting candidates who share their passion for longboarding.
Some startups in bathroom remodeling in Chicago have developed overly complex hiring processes that deter potential talent. Streamlining these procedures can attract more qualified candidates and benefit both the company and job seekers.
I would say that the recruiter acted correctly to tell you what the process would be. If you have a job and are satisfied with it, then no harm no foul - you can politely decline. If on the otherhand someone is desparately looking for a change - they know what they have to face and its up to them to decide if they want to invest the time and effort.
Also, in my experience, a home assignment and a tech review afterwards are a good way to see that the candidate is willing to invest the time (has the desire/drive to join the team) and check how they react to feedback and what was their thinking process (why they picked framework A instead of B; why they wrote a test here and not there). Some companies may skip that part if the candidate has a solid CV and has passed the initial interview with flying colors. A github/gitlab/etc account (if provided) with solid repositories can help a lot as well.
At the end of the day, if they (the company) are getting a decent number of candidates, then the process is probably fine. If not, I assume they will adjust as needed and remove some steps.
That said, articles like yours probably help readers (esp. recruiters) take this into consideration, so its good that you share your opinion.
I read an argument that we should accept shitty practices because we have to "See it from the company perspective".
I am a dev & recruiter, so let me offer a counter argument.
A company that does hiring properly should focus on having a good developer experience, meaning whether you are the one getting hired or not, the process should not suck.
What you describe is a developer experience that sucks.
Hiring process at those startups sucks because :
1) those startups suck at hiring
2) they are too ego-driven to listen to their customer and learn how to do it properly.
Let's consider Google, which is the mother of all ego-driven startups, it was famous for its 11 steps interview process.
We could totally "see things from the company perspective" like you propose and delude ourselves to believe they knew what they were doing.
... or we can listen to Google's customers, the devs, but Google is notoriously bad at doing that.
... or we can "look at the data". Which should not be necessary because we are dealing with humans and not traffic performance. But OK.
So what do the data tell us ?
I have specific styles of modern tech interviews in my sights as worse than others. Specifically, the whiteboard interview, the trivia/brain-teaser interview, and the “Knuth Fanatic,” algorithm-obsessed interview. These serve mainly to make the interviewer feel smart, rather than to reveal anything about candidates. But don’t take it from me. Laszlo Bock, former head of Google HR, said this:
And also this:
Deploying Guerrilla Tactics to Combat Stupid Tech Interviews
So that's pretty much where we stay.
top response here (sir, 🎩)
in the end, the hiring process is the first real interaction with your - maybe future - employer. It's really important.
Yes, it's often said that candidates have only one chance to make a good impression, but that's also true for companies because hiring is a two ways street.
This is a very common approach, but the durations seem long.
Investigate GitHub repos and contribution may take 1-2 hours and can erase the whole tech part in cases of an active account.
sadly i have (almost) no contribution to public repos (some thing here and there , but it's not relevant). Since my company has the code on GitHub i have 6-10 daily contributions every working day... but you can't check the repo itself.
Of course not everyone has lots of public contribution but I think that if someone does, it gives very good insights on the level of their code quality. If I would be HR I would definitely make use of it.
Just dropped by due to the title. Reminds me why I work contracts only and do not go for permanent roles. I do not envy the pain and suffering of going through such processes.
Some comments may only be visible to logged-in visitors. Sign in to view all comments.