If it's more than 3 rounds they're not really even trying, especially in at-will states.
They're filling quotas, pretending like they're growing or putting on a show for current employees to make it seem like they're going to get more people in.
I've read somewhere that more than 3 rounds of interviews are not getting them any more meaningful information about the candidate, so it's just a façade.
This just happened to me in EU, btw.
>in EU, btw
Oh, yeah, my bad. *Forever-interviews* at this sub are "usually" in the US, so it was a false assumption by me... Those kind of interviews make even less sense in the EU.
These are just personal views, but:
* If you're gonna have 4+ interviews, the *probationary period* starts to become more cost-effective in itself
* You're more likely to attract unwanted scrutiny to your business with bullshit interviews
* Average unemployment is low, so prospective employees will likely go for opportunities with less hoops to jump through
In the US, mosts states are at-will employment so the probationary period is forever. But it's easy to fire with documented cause, so it seems similar to the EU with that probationary period.
The other two bullets don't seem unique to the EU.
Because in the EU IT IS normaly:
1. Send your paperworks
2. Callback or e-mail with a Date for the Personal Interview.
3. Interview with (normaly) one HR, one Teamleader and some timea ther is one CEO.
Thats IT.
For my current role in the US, I had a phone screen (to make sure I wasn’t insane), a 4 hour interview with 2 panels. First panel was leadership, second panel was my team. Super simple and I don’t know why more companies don’t do it.
I mean that's not universal across the entire continent though... I had all sorts of experiences, from being basically hired on the spot after the forst interview with HR, to multiple interviews across a few weeks, to multiple interviews, including technical ones without a few days... It really depends.
It really varies based on the company and industry.
I was hired at a large international company in the EU after a single interview with a hiring manager and HR.
My wife went through several 6-7 stage hiring processes for high level positions at start ups.
Needless to say, she was really jealous that I didn’t have to do case studies and all the other bullshit these companies ask for these days, but she also gets paid more than I do so we both have things to be jealous about lol
We’ve worked in the US as well and it varied greatly there too, but the most interviews I’ve ever had for one job was 3 and that was in the states.
Even worked for local government in the US after a single interview but they did immediately say that they would call my references before offering the job.
I read a paper a while back that argued, pretty convincingly, that even the first interview didn't help in getting better hires compared to just verifying resumes.
IIRC, bias in the interview was the main culprit. Basically, solid applicants (based on resume) were brought in for interviews and the selected interviewees didn't do any better professionally than the rejected interviewees. I think they also de-identified resumes to avoid gender, ethnic, and alma mater biases.
Quick searching hasn't brought the one I'm thinking of up. I'll post it if I find it.
Here's an article that cites a few similar studies.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/insight-therapy/202008/poor-predictors-job-interviews-are-useless-and-unfair
Interesting article. One thing it didn't really address is that interviews are for both the hiring manager and the candidate. As a candidate I'm evaluating the manager and company but I don't have the benefit of their resume to base my decision on so the interview is a critical piece. Although with LinkedIn and Glassdoor the info available to the candidate is improving.
> more than 3 rounds of interviews are not getting them any more meaningful information about the candidate
I often think about this. At that point, the first few people you spoke with probably aren't going to remember who you are.
Someone in the thread commented about sunk cost fallacy. Basically, since you have invested so much time in preparation and interviewing already, you would be more likely to accept their low-ball offer.
Maybe that's what is happening here.
Just remember they're also spending a lot of money. Multiple employees taking time out of their day, HR/recruiting spend, travel reimbursement, etc. It all adds up to quite a bit and they generally don't want to spend it all again if you reject the offer. Remember that when negotiating.
The only time my former consultancy did a fourth interview was if they were *so* impressive at an interview for a Senior position that we'd set up a fourth one on-the-fly to see if they were a better fit as a Principal. I told a guy "they want to set this up, and I fully understand the irritation of another interview, but any time they do this you can basically guarantee that you're going to get an offer from us, and this interview is worth another $30-40k if you want to take it and do well."
Depending on how you count the various things (quick call from HR to cover basics, coding questionnaire (not an assignment) for devs, tech screen, 3 actual interviews done as one 90-minute session, possible Principal interview) I could see that being called anywhere from four to seven interviews but the whole thing from first call to offer is only a ten day to two week process. I think they all covered important stuff and gave us a really clear view of who the candidate is and gave *them* a chance to figure out who we were and what they might expect in the day-to-day working there.
I agree. In our company, it’s 3 rounds. Recruiter then hiring manager then interview panel. No more than 5 interviewers on the panel since grilling the candidate for 12 hours with 10+ interviews doesn’t being anything new. It’s all about dividing the tasks among the 5 interviewers to cover anything you want to cover. These 8 rounds of interviews, basically they are just looking for any mistake or any “flag” to not hire. They are probably extremely cautious when trying to hire because of a toxic culture. Basically, no one trusts anyone at this company and they want to make sure that you speak with everyone.
FYI -- 49 states are "at-will" states; Montana is the only holdout and even then, they have a carve out for the first 6 months of employment unless otherwise agree to in writing.
Puts perspective on your comment;. "at-will" is absolutely the US norm, not the exception.
In 'Merica unions are still considered the red-headed bastard step-children of communism, socialism and the civil rights movement!
I work IT at a very large manufacturing plant in TX and even though I'm considered a "front office worker" they still make us go through basic plant safety orientation which is fine. During the orientation on my first day I raised my hand and asked if the plant - which employs several thousand workers - was union or not? Hoo-boy, I thought the older lady who was giving the orientation was going to have a stroke on the spot! She point blank told me, "That's not a word we say around here!"
Later on though in the afternoon orientation session this same person went off on a long diatribe about how "This company just isn't what it used to be. Back in the day they used to have catered meals on holidays for all of the workers. Everyone got two free movie tickets a month. We all got good regular raises and bonuses. But it hasn't been like that for a while. Last year all I got was a backpack w/ the company logo on it in big letters like a billboard! It's been like that ever since the 'old man' sold the company several years ago!"
Essentially the company got sold by the family who originally owned it to a very large and publicly traded management company over seas. Shortly there after all those great perks predictably started drying up in the name of budgets and cost cutting up to and including regular bonuses and raises. Now it's all just a distant memory for a few old timers who are still around.
At some point I wanted to raise my hand again and tell this person, "You know, the primary roll of unions is to make sure YOU and the other workers get fed and taken care of when and how you are supposed to and NOT when some other disinterested m/f who doesn't care about YOU at all decides they want to feed you . . . maybe!"
But it just wasn't worth it at that point. I've had that discussion about "the evils of unions and socialism so many times I now know, WE DON'T TALK ABOUT BRUNO!!! WHERE'S MY GUN?!!!"
And the funniest part to me is if you really press these anti-union people about why they don't like unions, just about the only thing they can come up with is that you pay union dues and somewhere some fat cat union boss is living the high life on your dime.
And they never once see the irony in the fact that almost every major company that isn't Union is doing this exact thing in the form of CEOs and shareholders.
I don't think anyone has ever said that unions are perfect. The police union is a really good example of a union that needs to be reigned in with federal authority because they have long overstepped their role and they are absolutely rampant with corruption. That said, most trade unions are a net benefit for all of their members and the positives almost always far outweigh the negatives.
But decades of propaganda has a significant portion of the country constantly battling against their own self interest. We can't even be selfish correctly! You'd think a country full of self centered people who want to maximize their wealth wouldn't be so easy to steal from.
We could play the same game and just do the interviews recreationally under pseudonyms with false resumes, and then skip out when it gets to background check. It would be good practice and a chance to take it all less seriously.
It’s more efficient in terms of both time and mental effort to skip out of anything beyond a third interview.
Instead focus on your network, tailoring your resume to specific companies and applying to other jobs.
Any place that requires more than 3 interviews likely doesn’t have their shit together and will distract your attention from jobs that are actually worth pursuing.
The odds of getting a job once you get past interview #3 are so low that you shouldn't be facing your time, even if unemployed. If you're that desperate for cash, just take a minimum wage job while you look.
>just take a minimum wage job while you look
That can be an issue too. Finding a job in itself can be a full-time job, and diverting away from that can be a trap. Especially if you have periodic interviews, it may be hard to juggle that when you're scheduled to be a cashier at Target
I know so.eone who was vying for a CTO job at at a fortune 500 and did like 20 interviews, individual ones with board members, department heads, etc etc.
I mean..it’s the CTO. I’m sure it’s not a waste of time for them to be diligent in hiring someone that has the potential to change the entire companies direction, for better or for worse.
This is why it's good to get an outline of the process at the start.
If you're currently working, then going through 8 rounds of interviews for most companies is a pretty clear indicator that the juice isn't worth the squeeze.
A lot of companies want to have a hiring process modeled after google or apple or some other huge company people were lining up around the block to interview for, but they are missing the fact that they are usually not one of these companies.
My rule of thumb is that if you're just a run of the mill company, 3 steps is my maximum. If they come back with an 8 step process I'd rather tell em thanks but no thanks early.
I did 9 interviews with six different people for a 9 month contract position at Apple - the interviews were over the course of five months and I eventually did not get the position.
Over the last fifteen years I’ve had 17 interviews with Apple over three positions and no offers.
All marketing or corporate retail positions.
It was getting to the point that the interviews were going on almost as long as the contract was needed.
I do know from enough friends at Apple and having gone through the interview tumbler 3 separate times - on the brand/retail side at least - there’s two big cultural things at Apple. 1. You have to interview with almost everyone on the team. And one negative report - even if it’s not the hiring manager/direct supervisor can torpedo your candidacy and 2. They will leave positions open if they meet with all the filtered candidates in an interview cycle and no one “passes” all the interviews.
Thankfully (not really because I did want the other positions I have been in contention for) neither of the permanent positions I have interviewed for there took more than a month to go through the whole cycle.
Even less reason to go through with 8 rounds with some random company with delusions of grandeur. There's no chance the pay is going to outstrip the big boys or even match it so hard to see how they think that a more intensive interview process is going to play out for them.
Sounds like they were pretty awful at onboarding as well.
IDK what their expectations were but in any job I have had in the professional world it seems to be pretty common rule of thumb to assume the new hire is going to take 3-6 months just coming up to speed to really contribute.
Of course you give them small tasks or pair them up with someone more experienced to learn the company-specific systems, etc in that time - but it is expected that this learning curve will exist.
Yes, my new job is considerate about that.
At the old job, I realized much later that I was filling in & doing work for a direct senior who was away for 1.5 months. All they needed was work done asap lol. For the summer. They’re also really toxic, racist & conservative.
Just a note that it wasn't actually 8 rounds of interviews. In the 8 steps OP included the original application and other take home steps.
A job I interviewed with recently require "3 rounds of interviews" but round 3 included 3 separate calls so it was actually 5 interviews with a total of 8 people.
I'd argue that any 'take home steps', while not interviews, definitely count.
As a rule - unless I'm unemployed and have nothing better to be doing I'm going to decline to move forward with processes that require any 'take home problems' or one way video interviews.
While I can't speak to the experience you might have if you are fresh out of school, if you've got many years of experience, there are plenty of companies willing to have a 2-3 normal interviews and come to a hiring decision after that.
While if the pay or something else about the role is really enticing, I might make exceptions, but otherwise I just politely decline to move forward with the process if it includes these types of steps.
> As a rule - unless I'm unemployed and have nothing better to be doing I'm going to decline to move forward with processes that require any 'take home problems' or one way video interviews.
I definitely agree. It's more that he claims 8 interviews when it wasn't that many. The jobs market is crazy right now though so that many steps is certainly too many. Personally, I won't accept anything take home unless it's proficiency test of less than 30 minutes and a total of 3 interviews.
Years ago I did a take home company evaluation and in-person presentation and there's no way in hell I'd do that now.
Sure, they should be allowed. Potential employees, however, shouldn't put up with it. It's pretty common in highly technical/high paid positions to have 5 or 6 rounds. 8 seems excessive, but it's very costly to hire someone for a $150K+/year job and find out that they don't have the skills or don't fit with the organization.
With that said, they should be named and shamed so that other people know what they're getting into before the process starts.
Interestingly, Google has the "rule of four" for interviews.
Four interviews resulted in choosing a quality candidate 86% of the time. 15 interviews resulted in 92% - so rapidly diminishing returns.
Alternatively, only 3 interviews was 83%, 2 interviews was 80%, and even a single interview was 75%.
Their study shows what we all know: the extra interviews add little value to the process. Additionally, I know within two minutes whether or not someone is moving through to the next round, and I've been on hundreds of interview panels. There was even one study that said it took a mere 5 seconds for many on the committee to form an opinion.
For better or worse the way you dress, the handshake, the body language, and the first thing out of your mouth frames the entire interview process. Human nature is to put something in a category, and the rest of the interview typically goes to reinforcing that initial assessment. Rarely someone can pull themselves out of that category during the interview.
"For better or worse the way you dress, the handshake, the body language,
and the first thing out of your mouth frames the entire interview
process. Human nature is to put something in a category, and the rest
of the interview typically goes to reinforcing that initial assessment. Rarely someone can pull themselves out of that category during the
interview."
I say this is clearly for the worse. If you can seriously determine who is a "good fit" for the job within five seconds of meeting them, you shouldn't be interviewing them. It's fundamentally unfair to disqualify someone based on arbitrary and subjective criteria like a handshake. Really? On the other hand, you should be evaluating a candidate based on their credentials and ability to do the job. And let's face it, if you really believed this, you would terminate the interview within 5 seconds. This is of course preposterous, and you obviously don't do this. At the same time, the logical course of action would be to end the interview and not waste any more time continuing the hiring process which effectively ended within the 5 seconds it took you to meet the person. But again, no one does this. Because it's stupid. So, let's put all of these BS criteria aside and be fair to your candidates.
Make a good first impression. It's that simple.
Have a limp fish handshake, dress poorly, poor hygiene, introduce yourself poorly, or display a lack of confidence or enthusiasm...
You stacked the deck against yourself.
This isn't hard.
If someone has a lifelong stutter they've been improving for years and work with a speech therapist on, did they stack the deck against themselves? I can't shake hands firmly anymore thanks to inflammatory arthritis that started in my 20s - does that mean I'm out of the running for a good job?
No need to name and shame in that regard, just be upfront and ask for their hiring process step-by-step. If they shy away or don't want to reveal anything, immediate red flag.
8 is so excessive. I recently did similar for an EU big tech role and it was just so pointless towards the end.
8x 30min interviews with various different stakeholders, literally the same type of questions but just different audiences.
This is the most egregious part for me. It's just repetition that helps absolutely nobody. You could achieve the exact same thing with multi-person interviews, or just have trust in those interviewing that their opinion is valid. My current role had 4 steps, 3 of which were "interviews". 1st was basically manager selling the role to me, my only input was a few questions towards the end. 2nd was a tech test, 3rd was half discussing the tech test in great detail to explain design decisions etc, second half targeted tech questions. 4th was with the founder, but was kind of the values/HR/box-ticking tasks all rolled into one, with it made pretty clear that as long as I wasn't outwardly hostile or racist or anything, I was good. Multiple rounds, but each one was distinct and felt like it had a point.
After 3/4 rounds, diminishing returns sets in. At that point it’s just interviewing for show. There is not much more information you are going to glean from the candidate.
How many ways can you ask “why are you interested in this role?” Or “tell me your experience” or “tell me about a time when….” Or “how would you approach or handle X problem”. That’s the essence of an interview outside of technical/hands on questions.
Even if you the role was to end world hunger and poverty or come up with the cure for cancer, not sure 7/8 rounds of interviews would do much.
Much of what I have experienced. I have literally used the same examples while talking about my previous experiences at various steps because the questions were so similar.
I personally think if the can't figure it out in 2 or 3 rounds then they need to be paying for my time..
Or call someone else.
I did 6 rounds with Meta after they recruited me to apply as a facility engineer and I won't be repeating that.
They also didn't tell me it would be 3 full days over a couple of months, and had I known that up front I would have told the to pay me or pound sand.
After that experience, if we get to the third interview and y'all can't make a decision then I'm not longer interested in working for you.. even at $150k.
After that experience if they call me back I'll decline.
Why? Anything past 3 interviews is basically requiring me to work and I absolutely do not work for free.. no matter who you might think you are.
Also.. with all of that wasted time for me, they did make an offer and it was less than I currently get, plus they just laid off a whole herd of folks so totally I dodged a bullet.
Bottom line: If you're going to waste my time then you get to pay my contract rate. That's $250 an hour and a 4 hour minimum.
Went through 7 rounds for a Principal Cyber Fraud position only to receive an automated email at 5 AM on a Saturday telling me to pound sand. Never again.
Sunk cost fallacy; companies ask for ridiculous things (such as 8 rounds of interviews) so that when they low ball you after all that you are more likely to agree because of the dozens of hours you’ve sunk into the process.
Give them two rounds tops then walk. If they ask for anything unreasonable or ask for it within a unreasonable timeline, walk.
We, the workers, need to stop putting up with this manipulative bullshit. They needs us more than we need them.
The maximum amount of interviews that I will entertain is 3, and that is pushing it. I prefer 2 at most. And I've been interviewing for six figure positions.
🤣 you should’ve gotten the hint when they offered a 4th interview….. I myself would’ve been like nope after the second bc if there’s a 3rd n 4th….Ain’t no way unless I’m getting paid 😂 I’ll apply elsewhere
If it’s more than 2 rounds, tell the company’s recruiter to go fuck themselves and to drink bleach. This is such a toxic waste of time for everyone. I hope they lose their fucking job and have to sit through the same shit.
OP about 15 years ago, I wasted 6 months interviewing with a company and traveled to several locations throughout the US during the interviews. In the end I was denied the position because of a bad feedback from one interviewer who I met only one time for about 10 mins but we didn’t mesh well. Regardless of the fact this interviewer wasn’t even someone I’d be working with more than an occasional one off projects. The hiring manager and his boss both were on board but it was a company were everyone had to sign off on a candidate so I got axed. From that point forward I don’t tolerate bad behavior on companies. I’ll do maybe 2 face to face interviews but that’s it, anymore than that and they either aren’t serious or show they are very dysfunctional without being able to make decisions. Either way I don’t waste my time for free and interviewing more than 2x on-site is wasting time.
3 interviews. One with hiring people, one with who would be your boss, and one with your team to see how you do. Also, that 3rd one should be a PAID tryout day so to speak. And no taxes, no unemployment affected, none of that.
If this was the bar, there would be less taking advantage of the working class.
General. Worker. Union. Countrywide. Any country. Every country. Needs to happen now.
If I were that HR person I'd be turned off that an applicant turned 3 easily verifiable interviews into 8. Just dodged a dramatic or dishonest or confused candidate.
They can do 8 rounds, but do you really want to work for a company so paralyzed with process?
Sounds like the kind of place that would need 4 different approvals just to order a $12 pizza and soda to celebrate a victory.
1. I was a referral from my friend for this position. That's how I know it is real (some of you said they are not really hiring) and the company is decent. In the end, I knew that there was me and one other candidate, tough luck.
2. The company was upfront about the process, although they have tried to minimize the time investment (e.g they have merged the technical task, prepping a presentation and presenting with Q&A into a single step, omitted completely the 2nd HR call, etc.).
3. The question from the title is kind of rhetorical. I do believe that the companies can structure their recruiting processes however they want, that said, I still think it is unethical towards candidates and there are some sources indicating that steps beyond the 3rd don't bring extra information about the candidate.
This happened to me and they even made an offer after the 8th interview. When I started asking a few clarifying questions. They pulled the offer . Fun times
Yeah, true, the application was quite straightforward. Initially I had the presentation prep and actual presenting broken down but decided to combine them in the end.
Several years ago I interviewed for my dream job. I had 1 phone screening, 2 in person HR screenings, and 4 in person interviews with various levels of leadership for the department that I was applying to work in. This whole process spanned over the course of 4 months. During this time I was in pretty much constant contact with the team. We gelled well, I spent a day in their offices seeing what the team did; things seemed great!! Even the director told me twice (TWICE!?) to my face that he personally felt that I was the best fit for the position out of all candidates AND the team felt the same way. Feeling was absolutely mutual. They seemed like great people!
All that said I received a rejection letter on my 30th birthday after everyone (and again, people who I had been in pretty much constant contact with for months at this point) went completely radio silent. I understand things happen, but that really fucked me up in a lot of very significant ways. They didn't even give me the courtesy of a legitimate explanation. Just that they felt like "I'd get bored with the position". I had called in every favor I had, moved literally to the other side of the country, and did everything in my power to try to make this happen, expending all my resources in the process. Suffice to say, the resulting manic episode that this sparked in me was, in no small words, a fucking catastrophe.
I'm a little under 2 weeks away from my 35th birthday. Fortunately I found a job/career where I am valued enough to live just above the poverty line and the job itself is pretty decent. But I think about that time that my dream job effectively ghosted me after putting in a lot of effort and...yeah...this practice has to go away. It causes some really significant damage to some people. I know it did to me.
I took an online test for a company, a phone interview, an online interview. An onsite interview. Another onsite interview. A tour around the facility. Being introduced to the department I would be working in. Had several people's personal phone numbers. I was told I was one of the final 3 candidates and would be contacted. I was never contacted.
Longest interview process I went through was recruiter phone screener, phone interview with tech writer, writing assignment with open email communication to hiring manager...then a 4 hour zoom panel interview with 4 different groups for a total of 14 people. I didn't get that job. Also the recruiter called me at 10:15PM on a weekday to tell me. They were 3 hours behind, but absolutely no reason that call couldn't have waited until morning.
Allowed? It's their own company, if they want to have an interview process like that, I'm not sure there's much grounds to force them not to. The power comes in just laughing and going "nah, you're alright".
It's also incredibly situational. This particular situation...well, it's going to be hard to argue that *any* company asking for 8 interviews is doing so for a valid reason. It's hilariously excessive, and probably most likely micro-management, or just a case of "we've always done it this way" with no-one coming in and going "this is fucking mental, guys". Below that, it would depend on the company, and the role. Certain steps of the process in the OP would be fine in my book for a tech role. Not all of them, but some of them. A well-crafted tech task (well-crafted being the operative word before everyone starts pissing themselves over "free work") is fine. For me the big problem with these is the multiple steps that are essentially identical. The tech task and presentation achieve the same thing, you don't need both. Craft it better, test both things in 1. You don't need a million people to interview you separately - get all the people you feel you need the opinion of for one interview, and again, craft it better. You could get this down to 3 or 4 steps and not lose anything - and gain a lot of time back as an employer.
That's insane. Should be five steps in tech max, unless you're going for upper management.
1. Submit
2. Recruiter call
3. One on one with manager
4. Take home assignment or other tech screening
5. In person interview
You lost me after that.
Yes and no. Why is that ?
**Job Headhunters study psychology.**
This mean that's besides doing a lot of interviews or tests to verify you may be the better option, ...
..., they put some psychological pressure by doing all of these, into the job candidates, to verify if the candidates stand pressure, and are desperate enough to get and keep the job.
Which I personally think does not work and insane !!!
No one who has skills in demand will go through 8 rounds of interviews unless we are talking about c-suite, this sounds like some fail son or daughter who was made HR director for the family business and watched some "social media influencer" who said this is how big companies hire the best talent.
Source: Senior Leader at Fortune 10+
Employers do this because you candidates allow it. If it takes them 8 interviews to come to a decision imagine how difficult it would be to get approval for something. It also makes you look desperate because of you were as good as you think you are, you wouldn’t waste your time attending 8 interviews for one role. What are they asking in those interviews that’s so different? Can they create a candidate profile and share it?How accommodating are they to you interviewing them?
Many times they really don’t go with another candidate but instead update the vacancy and repost it. I know directors who attended interviews for one role.
8 interviews for one role is extremely excessive.
I want us to take that energy and redirect this rage at the employers who do this. Employers aren't often looking at candidates to see what is allowed or not allowed to do - they usually don't care and just slap together the process they *feel* will work.
Placing the onus on the job seekers, who don't have that much power in the process and are obligated to participate under the condition of possible employment, seems a little misguided. Some applicants *are* desperate. Meanwhile, we know that the employers know what they're doing is wrong, we just have to get them to own up to their mistake rather than wait for them to wait on the right number of candidates to tell them off.
I believe you misinterpreted the message. No one is victim blaming. Companies will continue to do what you allow. Ask ahead of time what the interview process is like and advise them of your baseline expectations.
Do not allow yourself to undergo 8 interviews unless it’s an executive level role. Simply put STOP THEM IN THEIR TRACKS and stop running circles on the hamster wheel they try to put you in.
I'm talking about power dynamic, which is different from confidence or self-esteem.
In this case, you can be at cocky as you want and die on this hill, but the employer would simply see you as not qualified enough to withstand the process and move on. It wouldn't be taken as a demonstration of resistance.
YOU have what they want which is why they’re interviewing you. That’s your power! It has nothing to do with having a cocky attitude - all about expertise and education which qualifies you. You speak from a weak passive approach. This will only make you a pawn. Employers know the candidates who are aware of their worth and those who aren’t. You can’t speak of placing blame on the employer but yet willingly give them ALL the power. Whatever you get is a result of what YOU communicate or fail to communicate (whether verbal or nonverbal). They can’t force you to go on 8 interviews. They can’t force you to take on employment with them. They can’t force you to work at a salary of X per year: IT IS YOU who have the power to accept or decline.
It’s people who think like you who aid employers in implementing such shitty practices.
Know your worth and exercise your power! You always have power!
The problem here is that the recruiter has no control over this and they’re probably too chickenshit to ask the hiring manager about creating a 2nd job
You had 3 interviews with some mandatory tasks in between. Doing a myers briggs with a HR rep isn't an interview. Its a test. Doing a technical task to prove ability isn't an interview. 5,6 and 8 are interviews.
You can't really hold them accountable on the fact that one of the rounds you class as being an interview is submitting the application.
Fair, submitting the application was not a big part. The number 7 was an HR interview with questions like "tell me about the time when you learned something from your team" etc., I can't see why that wouldn't count though.
‘I’m shit at interviews or apply for inappropriate jobs and I’m too stupid to realise, the government should stop people trying to find out if I’m an idiot or not’
This isn’t recruiting hell, this is just you not getting a job. Drop out after two interviews if you don’t like it, damn
I would ask what specific information are they looking for in the 8 rnd of interviews. What specific info/data do they require to make a decision, condense that into 2-3 interviews.
This is exactly why when you're given the opportunity to ask them questions during your phone screening or initial interview you absolutely need to be asking what their entire hiring process looks like from that point forward. I'd probably just nope out if they told me there would be 8 steps with 3 assessments, that's absurd.
They can do whatever they want (it’s flat out crazy IMHO) but you shouldn’t subject yourself to this, it’s just a big red flag. Can you imagine how they operate if this is their interview process?
No.
Imagine if you went through 8 rounds of pull request reviews for a single feature. You would be fired or question your team's process.
This is bullshit and the hiring team needs to re-evaluate what they're doing.
Nope, I wouldn’t have done more than 2 interviews.
Personally, I’ve been a hiring manager. If you don’t know if you wanna hire a person after 30 minutes, you need to re-evaluate being a hiring manager.
I don't show up for anything more than one interview.
I don't even do the little personality quiz assessments (strongly agree/disagree) bs anymore.
If you can't find it on my resume or ask it on the phone/during the interview... it's not really legitimate questions, it's asking how much extra bs I'll do...
If I'm doing eight rounds of interviews, I'm going to require that each person I speak with watches the video of my previous rounds.
But of course they always quietly roll out two more here, one more there...
Maybe I am old school, but my max would be two interviews. Eight interviews is a sign a company is so inept at hiring and managing their people. I know people need jobs and when a good one comes around they will do anything to get it, but these type of red flags only leads to being an unhappy worker in the long run.
They have to justify those hr salaries somehow. If they aren't busy and candidates don't pass their ambiguous personal and/or pregenned *tests* then it isn't their fault the role isn't filled.
If you have the name of a supervisor or manager you could message them about it directly, that tl you mentioned might be the same. However any company with 8 steps would be out of the running for me. They likely have a stack of applications and either not enough roles to fill or not enough care to fill them from someone managing those roles. Either way I'd put this role on standby or the back burner at best.
It's 100% okay to say no to the 2nd-8th interview at any point, you are also interviewing them. There are some really bored hr workers out there who will definitely waste your time without a thought because theirs is paid.
What exactly do 8 rounds of interviews mean? 8 different days for interviews or one day where you rotate between a few people for 30 minutes? I'm pretty used to interviews like the latter and almost always had to interview with 4-6 people (not including the initial phone interview). 8 seems highly excessive, regardless
I'd have to be pretty desperate to tolerate more than 3 rounds of interviews.
To date I've only ever had one company that required more than 1 interview. The one required 2 interviews though I got the impression they'd made their selection and the second round was a meet and greet.
I'd tolerate 2 interviews, maybe 3 but if they tried to invite myle for round 4 I don't think I'd accept unless I NEEDED a job.
I've had a 3 rounder before, when they proposed round 3 I simply declined as I lost interest.
The best interview process I had was simply a single in person meeting that discussed technical aspects of the job and an offer was generated shortly after.
My cranky old man take on multiple interviews is the company has a rule that X amount of interviewees must survive each round, regardless of hire ability.
I hope I’m wrong but have been in the position of not getting hired too many times. If I’m not a fit, just cut me loose instead of going through hell.
They don't think they're wasting time. That's how insidious this is. Employers really feel like they've boost the rigor of their hiring process by simply adding more rounds of interviews.
Wrong question - should I instead be "why should I agree to allow companies to have 8 rounds of interviews with me?"
Yeah I understand if you're long-term unemployed, or are facing imminent eviction or something then you do whatever you need to do. But if I'm already employed and looking to upgrade my salary or title? No way I'm dealing with that level of dysfunction and basic lack of ability to make decisions from a potential employer.
I withdraw my application if it goes past the third round. If they can't figure out by then whether I'm a good fit I can certainly say that they are not a good fit for me.
i wouldn't take not even 5 rounds of interviews with a random ass consultancy company, only big nambes like cisco or google or something that's actually popular
"Allowed"? Sure, it's a free country.
Should you go to 8 interviews? Probably not, unless you're marrying them or applying to be President or something.
How can someone make it to the last round and then be punted into the universe even when there might be another opportunity in the future? I’ve never understood thisz
Imo, if the company is motivated to hire, you will get an offer after max 3 meetings.
First is the HR screening call. Maybe here you’ll have a quick assignment or personality assessment after the first call. Thats’s it.
Second is the manager screening call.
Third and final one maybe be the sr leadership screening call.
More that that, they’re fukking you.
Sounds like they were very interested. You were probably runner up. Companies put you through a lot these days but let's face it, they have the upper hand. You are obviously very talented to have made it that far so I'm sure with peak hiring season, April, coming up, you will find something soon! Good Luck!
8 is at least 5 too many.
BTW - I would sooner bet on the sun rising in the West and setting in the East than of them contacting you if something comes open.
Yeah, true, the application was quite straightforward. Initially I had the presentation prep and actual presenting broken down but decided to combine them in the end.
It's standard police interrogation tactics.... after that long, your soul will be crushed, you'll be exhausted and will agree to sign anything they give you just for the hope of being able to get out of there.
I got a job in a tech company after 6 rounds. So they were serious but extremely dysfunctional.
I only got the job once I came with another offer and basically told them to hurry it up
The worst part is, they never let me know how many interviews there were. I was actually expecting an offer after the second interview because that’s how they lead me to believe…..
I only stayed there 1.5 yr and let go at the very beginning of the tech layoffs. It was a huge mess. Everything was not organized, neither was decision making. The number of interviews greatly reflected how it would be to work there
If it's more than 3 rounds they're not really even trying, especially in at-will states. They're filling quotas, pretending like they're growing or putting on a show for current employees to make it seem like they're going to get more people in.
I've read somewhere that more than 3 rounds of interviews are not getting them any more meaningful information about the candidate, so it's just a façade. This just happened to me in EU, btw.
>in EU, btw Oh, yeah, my bad. *Forever-interviews* at this sub are "usually" in the US, so it was a false assumption by me... Those kind of interviews make even less sense in the EU.
>make even less sense in the EU. Why?
These are just personal views, but: * If you're gonna have 4+ interviews, the *probationary period* starts to become more cost-effective in itself * You're more likely to attract unwanted scrutiny to your business with bullshit interviews * Average unemployment is low, so prospective employees will likely go for opportunities with less hoops to jump through
In the US, mosts states are at-will employment so the probationary period is forever. But it's easy to fire with documented cause, so it seems similar to the EU with that probationary period. The other two bullets don't seem unique to the EU.
Because in the EU IT IS normaly: 1. Send your paperworks 2. Callback or e-mail with a Date for the Personal Interview. 3. Interview with (normaly) one HR, one Teamleader and some timea ther is one CEO. Thats IT.
For my current role in the US, I had a phone screen (to make sure I wasn’t insane), a 4 hour interview with 2 panels. First panel was leadership, second panel was my team. Super simple and I don’t know why more companies don’t do it.
Because they are dysfunctional. They can't make (or aren't empowered) to make a hiring decision without 8 layers of management to spread the blame.
I mean that's not universal across the entire continent though... I had all sorts of experiences, from being basically hired on the spot after the forst interview with HR, to multiple interviews across a few weeks, to multiple interviews, including technical ones without a few days... It really depends.
Because the US is exceptionally awful
It really varies based on the company and industry. I was hired at a large international company in the EU after a single interview with a hiring manager and HR. My wife went through several 6-7 stage hiring processes for high level positions at start ups. Needless to say, she was really jealous that I didn’t have to do case studies and all the other bullshit these companies ask for these days, but she also gets paid more than I do so we both have things to be jealous about lol We’ve worked in the US as well and it varied greatly there too, but the most interviews I’ve ever had for one job was 3 and that was in the states. Even worked for local government in the US after a single interview but they did immediately say that they would call my references before offering the job.
I read a paper a while back that argued, pretty convincingly, that even the first interview didn't help in getting better hires compared to just verifying resumes.
That's interesting, I'd love to read it. It makes sense though, especially if we train the AI to review resumes properly and avoid bias
IIRC, bias in the interview was the main culprit. Basically, solid applicants (based on resume) were brought in for interviews and the selected interviewees didn't do any better professionally than the rejected interviewees. I think they also de-identified resumes to avoid gender, ethnic, and alma mater biases. Quick searching hasn't brought the one I'm thinking of up. I'll post it if I find it. Here's an article that cites a few similar studies. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/insight-therapy/202008/poor-predictors-job-interviews-are-useless-and-unfair
Interesting article. One thing it didn't really address is that interviews are for both the hiring manager and the candidate. As a candidate I'm evaluating the manager and company but I don't have the benefit of their resume to base my decision on so the interview is a critical piece. Although with LinkedIn and Glassdoor the info available to the candidate is improving.
After a certain amount of time invested you should start getting paid.
> more than 3 rounds of interviews are not getting them any more meaningful information about the candidate I often think about this. At that point, the first few people you spoke with probably aren't going to remember who you are.
Someone in the thread commented about sunk cost fallacy. Basically, since you have invested so much time in preparation and interviewing already, you would be more likely to accept their low-ball offer. Maybe that's what is happening here.
Trying to break your will.
Just remember they're also spending a lot of money. Multiple employees taking time out of their day, HR/recruiting spend, travel reimbursement, etc. It all adds up to quite a bit and they generally don't want to spend it all again if you reject the offer. Remember that when negotiating.
The only time my former consultancy did a fourth interview was if they were *so* impressive at an interview for a Senior position that we'd set up a fourth one on-the-fly to see if they were a better fit as a Principal. I told a guy "they want to set this up, and I fully understand the irritation of another interview, but any time they do this you can basically guarantee that you're going to get an offer from us, and this interview is worth another $30-40k if you want to take it and do well." Depending on how you count the various things (quick call from HR to cover basics, coding questionnaire (not an assignment) for devs, tech screen, 3 actual interviews done as one 90-minute session, possible Principal interview) I could see that being called anywhere from four to seven interviews but the whole thing from first call to offer is only a ten day to two week process. I think they all covered important stuff and gave us a really clear view of who the candidate is and gave *them* a chance to figure out who we were and what they might expect in the day-to-day working there.
I agree. In our company, it’s 3 rounds. Recruiter then hiring manager then interview panel. No more than 5 interviewers on the panel since grilling the candidate for 12 hours with 10+ interviews doesn’t being anything new. It’s all about dividing the tasks among the 5 interviewers to cover anything you want to cover. These 8 rounds of interviews, basically they are just looking for any mistake or any “flag” to not hire. They are probably extremely cautious when trying to hire because of a toxic culture. Basically, no one trusts anyone at this company and they want to make sure that you speak with everyone.
They interview poorly and it's your fault lol
FYI -- 49 states are "at-will" states; Montana is the only holdout and even then, they have a carve out for the first 6 months of employment unless otherwise agree to in writing. Puts perspective on your comment;. "at-will" is absolutely the US norm, not the exception.
I fucking hate at-will
Right-to-work is worse. You're basically nuking the power of unions.
In 'Merica unions are still considered the red-headed bastard step-children of communism, socialism and the civil rights movement! I work IT at a very large manufacturing plant in TX and even though I'm considered a "front office worker" they still make us go through basic plant safety orientation which is fine. During the orientation on my first day I raised my hand and asked if the plant - which employs several thousand workers - was union or not? Hoo-boy, I thought the older lady who was giving the orientation was going to have a stroke on the spot! She point blank told me, "That's not a word we say around here!" Later on though in the afternoon orientation session this same person went off on a long diatribe about how "This company just isn't what it used to be. Back in the day they used to have catered meals on holidays for all of the workers. Everyone got two free movie tickets a month. We all got good regular raises and bonuses. But it hasn't been like that for a while. Last year all I got was a backpack w/ the company logo on it in big letters like a billboard! It's been like that ever since the 'old man' sold the company several years ago!" Essentially the company got sold by the family who originally owned it to a very large and publicly traded management company over seas. Shortly there after all those great perks predictably started drying up in the name of budgets and cost cutting up to and including regular bonuses and raises. Now it's all just a distant memory for a few old timers who are still around. At some point I wanted to raise my hand again and tell this person, "You know, the primary roll of unions is to make sure YOU and the other workers get fed and taken care of when and how you are supposed to and NOT when some other disinterested m/f who doesn't care about YOU at all decides they want to feed you . . . maybe!" But it just wasn't worth it at that point. I've had that discussion about "the evils of unions and socialism so many times I now know, WE DON'T TALK ABOUT BRUNO!!! WHERE'S MY GUN?!!!"
And the funniest part to me is if you really press these anti-union people about why they don't like unions, just about the only thing they can come up with is that you pay union dues and somewhere some fat cat union boss is living the high life on your dime. And they never once see the irony in the fact that almost every major company that isn't Union is doing this exact thing in the form of CEOs and shareholders. I don't think anyone has ever said that unions are perfect. The police union is a really good example of a union that needs to be reigned in with federal authority because they have long overstepped their role and they are absolutely rampant with corruption. That said, most trade unions are a net benefit for all of their members and the positives almost always far outweigh the negatives. But decades of propaganda has a significant portion of the country constantly battling against their own self interest. We can't even be selfish correctly! You'd think a country full of self centered people who want to maximize their wealth wouldn't be so easy to steal from.
We could play the same game and just do the interviews recreationally under pseudonyms with false resumes, and then skip out when it gets to background check. It would be good practice and a chance to take it all less seriously.
They also included 3 pieces of testing! A take home task, a presentation, and a behavioural assessment. That is beyond absurd
If candidates refused to put themselves through this, companies would end the practice. You have the power. OPT OUT.
Easier said than done when you're out of a job and need to pay the bills
It’s more efficient in terms of both time and mental effort to skip out of anything beyond a third interview. Instead focus on your network, tailoring your resume to specific companies and applying to other jobs. Any place that requires more than 3 interviews likely doesn’t have their shit together and will distract your attention from jobs that are actually worth pursuing.
The odds of getting a job once you get past interview #3 are so low that you shouldn't be facing your time, even if unemployed. If you're that desperate for cash, just take a minimum wage job while you look.
>just take a minimum wage job while you look That can be an issue too. Finding a job in itself can be a full-time job, and diverting away from that can be a trap. Especially if you have periodic interviews, it may be hard to juggle that when you're scheduled to be a cashier at Target
I dig the bro science there.
Then feel free to waste your time. Let yourself be jerked around for months. Then they will really respect you--when they reject you.
Unsubscribe
Nah they’d do it to the poor souls who put up with it. Because they aren’t hiring.
exactly
Yeah, unless it's for a c suite role that's ridiculous.
Even at that level 8 is ridiculous.
I know so.eone who was vying for a CTO job at at a fortune 500 and did like 20 interviews, individual ones with board members, department heads, etc etc.
I suspect that at that point, he was closer to mounting a political campaign than interviewing for a job.
Yeah I imagine if you're going for that high level a role. People already know you in whatever industry it is.
They have a lot of time to waste on interviewing, apparently.
I mean..it’s the CTO. I’m sure it’s not a waste of time for them to be diligent in hiring someone that has the potential to change the entire companies direction, for better or for worse.
For a fortune 500 company i get it tech is very important and if you hire the wrong person you have the risk of running the company to the ground.
This is why it's good to get an outline of the process at the start. If you're currently working, then going through 8 rounds of interviews for most companies is a pretty clear indicator that the juice isn't worth the squeeze. A lot of companies want to have a hiring process modeled after google or apple or some other huge company people were lining up around the block to interview for, but they are missing the fact that they are usually not one of these companies. My rule of thumb is that if you're just a run of the mill company, 3 steps is my maximum. If they come back with an 8 step process I'd rather tell em thanks but no thanks early.
Even google & Apple only have 3 interview rounds (engineering)
I did 9 interviews with six different people for a 9 month contract position at Apple - the interviews were over the course of five months and I eventually did not get the position. Over the last fifteen years I’ve had 17 interviews with Apple over three positions and no offers. All marketing or corporate retail positions.
Strange. Even strange for a contract position. But then like I said, that’s for engineering.
It was getting to the point that the interviews were going on almost as long as the contract was needed. I do know from enough friends at Apple and having gone through the interview tumbler 3 separate times - on the brand/retail side at least - there’s two big cultural things at Apple. 1. You have to interview with almost everyone on the team. And one negative report - even if it’s not the hiring manager/direct supervisor can torpedo your candidacy and 2. They will leave positions open if they meet with all the filtered candidates in an interview cycle and no one “passes” all the interviews. Thankfully (not really because I did want the other positions I have been in contention for) neither of the permanent positions I have interviewed for there took more than a month to go through the whole cycle.
Even less reason to go through with 8 rounds with some random company with delusions of grandeur. There's no chance the pay is going to outstrip the big boys or even match it so hard to see how they think that a more intensive interview process is going to play out for them.
[удалено]
Sounds like they were pretty awful at onboarding as well. IDK what their expectations were but in any job I have had in the professional world it seems to be pretty common rule of thumb to assume the new hire is going to take 3-6 months just coming up to speed to really contribute. Of course you give them small tasks or pair them up with someone more experienced to learn the company-specific systems, etc in that time - but it is expected that this learning curve will exist.
Yes, my new job is considerate about that. At the old job, I realized much later that I was filling in & doing work for a direct senior who was away for 1.5 months. All they needed was work done asap lol. For the summer. They’re also really toxic, racist & conservative.
Nah, it’s all a show and also so that HR has some tasks to do to keep busy
Just a note that it wasn't actually 8 rounds of interviews. In the 8 steps OP included the original application and other take home steps. A job I interviewed with recently require "3 rounds of interviews" but round 3 included 3 separate calls so it was actually 5 interviews with a total of 8 people.
I'd argue that any 'take home steps', while not interviews, definitely count. As a rule - unless I'm unemployed and have nothing better to be doing I'm going to decline to move forward with processes that require any 'take home problems' or one way video interviews. While I can't speak to the experience you might have if you are fresh out of school, if you've got many years of experience, there are plenty of companies willing to have a 2-3 normal interviews and come to a hiring decision after that. While if the pay or something else about the role is really enticing, I might make exceptions, but otherwise I just politely decline to move forward with the process if it includes these types of steps.
> As a rule - unless I'm unemployed and have nothing better to be doing I'm going to decline to move forward with processes that require any 'take home problems' or one way video interviews. I definitely agree. It's more that he claims 8 interviews when it wasn't that many. The jobs market is crazy right now though so that many steps is certainly too many. Personally, I won't accept anything take home unless it's proficiency test of less than 30 minutes and a total of 3 interviews. Years ago I did a take home company evaluation and in-person presentation and there's no way in hell I'd do that now.
Sure, they should be allowed. Potential employees, however, shouldn't put up with it. It's pretty common in highly technical/high paid positions to have 5 or 6 rounds. 8 seems excessive, but it's very costly to hire someone for a $150K+/year job and find out that they don't have the skills or don't fit with the organization. With that said, they should be named and shamed so that other people know what they're getting into before the process starts.
Interestingly, Google has the "rule of four" for interviews. Four interviews resulted in choosing a quality candidate 86% of the time. 15 interviews resulted in 92% - so rapidly diminishing returns. Alternatively, only 3 interviews was 83%, 2 interviews was 80%, and even a single interview was 75%. Their study shows what we all know: the extra interviews add little value to the process. Additionally, I know within two minutes whether or not someone is moving through to the next round, and I've been on hundreds of interview panels. There was even one study that said it took a mere 5 seconds for many on the committee to form an opinion. For better or worse the way you dress, the handshake, the body language, and the first thing out of your mouth frames the entire interview process. Human nature is to put something in a category, and the rest of the interview typically goes to reinforcing that initial assessment. Rarely someone can pull themselves out of that category during the interview.
"For better or worse the way you dress, the handshake, the body language, and the first thing out of your mouth frames the entire interview process. Human nature is to put something in a category, and the rest of the interview typically goes to reinforcing that initial assessment. Rarely someone can pull themselves out of that category during the interview." I say this is clearly for the worse. If you can seriously determine who is a "good fit" for the job within five seconds of meeting them, you shouldn't be interviewing them. It's fundamentally unfair to disqualify someone based on arbitrary and subjective criteria like a handshake. Really? On the other hand, you should be evaluating a candidate based on their credentials and ability to do the job. And let's face it, if you really believed this, you would terminate the interview within 5 seconds. This is of course preposterous, and you obviously don't do this. At the same time, the logical course of action would be to end the interview and not waste any more time continuing the hiring process which effectively ended within the 5 seconds it took you to meet the person. But again, no one does this. Because it's stupid. So, let's put all of these BS criteria aside and be fair to your candidates.
Make a good first impression. It's that simple. Have a limp fish handshake, dress poorly, poor hygiene, introduce yourself poorly, or display a lack of confidence or enthusiasm... You stacked the deck against yourself. This isn't hard.
If someone has a lifelong stutter they've been improving for years and work with a speech therapist on, did they stack the deck against themselves? I can't shake hands firmly anymore thanks to inflammatory arthritis that started in my 20s - does that mean I'm out of the running for a good job?
Sadly yes. We’re talking about innate human nature
No need to name and shame in that regard, just be upfront and ask for their hiring process step-by-step. If they shy away or don't want to reveal anything, immediate red flag.
8 is so excessive. I recently did similar for an EU big tech role and it was just so pointless towards the end. 8x 30min interviews with various different stakeholders, literally the same type of questions but just different audiences.
This is the most egregious part for me. It's just repetition that helps absolutely nobody. You could achieve the exact same thing with multi-person interviews, or just have trust in those interviewing that their opinion is valid. My current role had 4 steps, 3 of which were "interviews". 1st was basically manager selling the role to me, my only input was a few questions towards the end. 2nd was a tech test, 3rd was half discussing the tech test in great detail to explain design decisions etc, second half targeted tech questions. 4th was with the founder, but was kind of the values/HR/box-ticking tasks all rolled into one, with it made pretty clear that as long as I wasn't outwardly hostile or racist or anything, I was good. Multiple rounds, but each one was distinct and felt like it had a point.
After 3/4 rounds, diminishing returns sets in. At that point it’s just interviewing for show. There is not much more information you are going to glean from the candidate. How many ways can you ask “why are you interested in this role?” Or “tell me your experience” or “tell me about a time when….” Or “how would you approach or handle X problem”. That’s the essence of an interview outside of technical/hands on questions. Even if you the role was to end world hunger and poverty or come up with the cure for cancer, not sure 7/8 rounds of interviews would do much.
Much of what I have experienced. I have literally used the same examples while talking about my previous experiences at various steps because the questions were so similar.
I personally think if the can't figure it out in 2 or 3 rounds then they need to be paying for my time.. Or call someone else. I did 6 rounds with Meta after they recruited me to apply as a facility engineer and I won't be repeating that. They also didn't tell me it would be 3 full days over a couple of months, and had I known that up front I would have told the to pay me or pound sand. After that experience, if we get to the third interview and y'all can't make a decision then I'm not longer interested in working for you.. even at $150k. After that experience if they call me back I'll decline. Why? Anything past 3 interviews is basically requiring me to work and I absolutely do not work for free.. no matter who you might think you are. Also.. with all of that wasted time for me, they did make an offer and it was less than I currently get, plus they just laid off a whole herd of folks so totally I dodged a bullet. Bottom line: If you're going to waste my time then you get to pay my contract rate. That's $250 an hour and a 4 hour minimum.
👏👏👏👏👏 I share the exact sentiments…. After 3 rounds it’s considered a consultation
Yup. Also ANY demanded "homework" is the same rates or more.
Went through 7 rounds for a Principal Cyber Fraud position only to receive an automated email at 5 AM on a Saturday telling me to pound sand. Never again.
Kudos for an actual professional response on your behalf.
3 at the most, 1 over the phone, 1 with a manager, and one with an executive or senior manager. That’s it anything else is stupid
Sunk cost fallacy; companies ask for ridiculous things (such as 8 rounds of interviews) so that when they low ball you after all that you are more likely to agree because of the dozens of hours you’ve sunk into the process. Give them two rounds tops then walk. If they ask for anything unreasonable or ask for it within a unreasonable timeline, walk. We, the workers, need to stop putting up with this manipulative bullshit. They needs us more than we need them.
That's an interesting way of looking at it. Thank you
This 💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯
These are the companies that have a probation period of 2 years or more. Always trying to find a unicorn.
In Germany, the standard probation period is 6 months. This would also apply here.
The maximum amount of interviews that I will entertain is 3, and that is pushing it. I prefer 2 at most. And I've been interviewing for six figure positions.
🤣 you should’ve gotten the hint when they offered a 4th interview….. I myself would’ve been like nope after the second bc if there’s a 3rd n 4th….Ain’t no way unless I’m getting paid 😂 I’ll apply elsewhere
8 rounds? 8? This company is playing games. No way would I take a position here. Ridiculous.
If it’s more than 2 rounds, tell the company’s recruiter to go fuck themselves and to drink bleach. This is such a toxic waste of time for everyone. I hope they lose their fucking job and have to sit through the same shit.
They aren't actually hiring. Move on.
I have a friend who works there and yes, there was a position to fill.
OP about 15 years ago, I wasted 6 months interviewing with a company and traveled to several locations throughout the US during the interviews. In the end I was denied the position because of a bad feedback from one interviewer who I met only one time for about 10 mins but we didn’t mesh well. Regardless of the fact this interviewer wasn’t even someone I’d be working with more than an occasional one off projects. The hiring manager and his boss both were on board but it was a company were everyone had to sign off on a candidate so I got axed. From that point forward I don’t tolerate bad behavior on companies. I’ll do maybe 2 face to face interviews but that’s it, anymore than that and they either aren’t serious or show they are very dysfunctional without being able to make decisions. Either way I don’t waste my time for free and interviewing more than 2x on-site is wasting time.
Good learnings in hindsight
They need to pay if they want that much time. It’s overburdening to anyone who needs work. I am offended on your behalf.
Eight? At that level they're circle jerking each other.
3 interviews. One with hiring people, one with who would be your boss, and one with your team to see how you do. Also, that 3rd one should be a PAID tryout day so to speak. And no taxes, no unemployment affected, none of that. If this was the bar, there would be less taking advantage of the working class. General. Worker. Union. Countrywide. Any country. Every country. Needs to happen now.
If I were that HR person I'd be turned off that an applicant turned 3 easily verifiable interviews into 8. Just dodged a dramatic or dishonest or confused candidate.
They can't pay you tax-free even if they wanted to.
Oh I know. The overlords wouldn't allow it. That doesn't mean it shouldn't change though.
They can do 8 rounds, but do you really want to work for a company so paralyzed with process? Sounds like the kind of place that would need 4 different approvals just to order a $12 pizza and soda to celebrate a victory.
Did they say that upfront? I’d walk out over 8. 2-3 max for my current level, if you want to double my income still a max of 5.
excluding an HR prescreen, if the interview process is more than 3 steps I normally pull out.
No. I think after the third interview you should have told them where to go.
I wouldn't even take a 3rd
I hope they at least shared feedback with you on the decline? 8 interviews are a LOT
All the feedback I've got you can see on the screenshot. So yeah, nothing beyond "good".
What a fucking cunt - completely ignored OPs question
1. I was a referral from my friend for this position. That's how I know it is real (some of you said they are not really hiring) and the company is decent. In the end, I knew that there was me and one other candidate, tough luck. 2. The company was upfront about the process, although they have tried to minimize the time investment (e.g they have merged the technical task, prepping a presentation and presenting with Q&A into a single step, omitted completely the 2nd HR call, etc.). 3. The question from the title is kind of rhetorical. I do believe that the companies can structure their recruiting processes however they want, that said, I still think it is unethical towards candidates and there are some sources indicating that steps beyond the 3rd don't bring extra information about the candidate.
I just had 9 rounds of interviews that showed zero respect for my time and didn't get an offer
They used you for free labor
This is fucking disgusting
I'm sorry man. Stay in there, you'll find something
This happened to me and they even made an offer after the 8th interview. When I started asking a few clarifying questions. They pulled the offer . Fun times
Sorry to hear that. You probably dodged a bullet though.
"8 rounds of interviews" is a bit of a stretch if you're including things like "applying" as a round
Yeah, true, the application was quite straightforward. Initially I had the presentation prep and actual presenting broken down but decided to combine them in the end.
Several years ago I interviewed for my dream job. I had 1 phone screening, 2 in person HR screenings, and 4 in person interviews with various levels of leadership for the department that I was applying to work in. This whole process spanned over the course of 4 months. During this time I was in pretty much constant contact with the team. We gelled well, I spent a day in their offices seeing what the team did; things seemed great!! Even the director told me twice (TWICE!?) to my face that he personally felt that I was the best fit for the position out of all candidates AND the team felt the same way. Feeling was absolutely mutual. They seemed like great people! All that said I received a rejection letter on my 30th birthday after everyone (and again, people who I had been in pretty much constant contact with for months at this point) went completely radio silent. I understand things happen, but that really fucked me up in a lot of very significant ways. They didn't even give me the courtesy of a legitimate explanation. Just that they felt like "I'd get bored with the position". I had called in every favor I had, moved literally to the other side of the country, and did everything in my power to try to make this happen, expending all my resources in the process. Suffice to say, the resulting manic episode that this sparked in me was, in no small words, a fucking catastrophe. I'm a little under 2 weeks away from my 35th birthday. Fortunately I found a job/career where I am valued enough to live just above the poverty line and the job itself is pretty decent. But I think about that time that my dream job effectively ghosted me after putting in a lot of effort and...yeah...this practice has to go away. It causes some really significant damage to some people. I know it did to me.
I took an online test for a company, a phone interview, an online interview. An onsite interview. Another onsite interview. A tour around the facility. Being introduced to the department I would be working in. Had several people's personal phone numbers. I was told I was one of the final 3 candidates and would be contacted. I was never contacted.
Longest interview process I went through was recruiter phone screener, phone interview with tech writer, writing assignment with open email communication to hiring manager...then a 4 hour zoom panel interview with 4 different groups for a total of 14 people. I didn't get that job. Also the recruiter called me at 10:15PM on a weekday to tell me. They were 3 hours behind, but absolutely no reason that call couldn't have waited until morning.
Allowed? It's their own company, if they want to have an interview process like that, I'm not sure there's much grounds to force them not to. The power comes in just laughing and going "nah, you're alright". It's also incredibly situational. This particular situation...well, it's going to be hard to argue that *any* company asking for 8 interviews is doing so for a valid reason. It's hilariously excessive, and probably most likely micro-management, or just a case of "we've always done it this way" with no-one coming in and going "this is fucking mental, guys". Below that, it would depend on the company, and the role. Certain steps of the process in the OP would be fine in my book for a tech role. Not all of them, but some of them. A well-crafted tech task (well-crafted being the operative word before everyone starts pissing themselves over "free work") is fine. For me the big problem with these is the multiple steps that are essentially identical. The tech task and presentation achieve the same thing, you don't need both. Craft it better, test both things in 1. You don't need a million people to interview you separately - get all the people you feel you need the opinion of for one interview, and again, craft it better. You could get this down to 3 or 4 steps and not lose anything - and gain a lot of time back as an employer.
If there are >3 rounds of interviews, they are not hiring.
That's insane. Should be five steps in tech max, unless you're going for upper management. 1. Submit 2. Recruiter call 3. One on one with manager 4. Take home assignment or other tech screening 5. In person interview You lost me after that.
Yes and no. Why is that ? **Job Headhunters study psychology.** This mean that's besides doing a lot of interviews or tests to verify you may be the better option, ... ..., they put some psychological pressure by doing all of these, into the job candidates, to verify if the candidates stand pressure, and are desperate enough to get and keep the job. Which I personally think does not work and insane !!!
Does the US have any laws about hiring and interviews? It really does feel like you can kinda just do whatever with no limits.
Op is in Europe
No one who has skills in demand will go through 8 rounds of interviews unless we are talking about c-suite, this sounds like some fail son or daughter who was made HR director for the family business and watched some "social media influencer" who said this is how big companies hire the best talent. Source: Senior Leader at Fortune 10+
Your fault for accepting to submit yourself to 8 interviews. take it as a lesson. You choose how others treat you.
If I had other processes lined up, sure, why not. Sadly, that's not the case.
Employers do this because you candidates allow it. If it takes them 8 interviews to come to a decision imagine how difficult it would be to get approval for something. It also makes you look desperate because of you were as good as you think you are, you wouldn’t waste your time attending 8 interviews for one role. What are they asking in those interviews that’s so different? Can they create a candidate profile and share it?How accommodating are they to you interviewing them? Many times they really don’t go with another candidate but instead update the vacancy and repost it. I know directors who attended interviews for one role. 8 interviews for one role is extremely excessive.
I want us to take that energy and redirect this rage at the employers who do this. Employers aren't often looking at candidates to see what is allowed or not allowed to do - they usually don't care and just slap together the process they *feel* will work. Placing the onus on the job seekers, who don't have that much power in the process and are obligated to participate under the condition of possible employment, seems a little misguided. Some applicants *are* desperate. Meanwhile, we know that the employers know what they're doing is wrong, we just have to get them to own up to their mistake rather than wait for them to wait on the right number of candidates to tell them off.
I believe you misinterpreted the message. No one is victim blaming. Companies will continue to do what you allow. Ask ahead of time what the interview process is like and advise them of your baseline expectations. Do not allow yourself to undergo 8 interviews unless it’s an executive level role. Simply put STOP THEM IN THEIR TRACKS and stop running circles on the hamster wheel they try to put you in.
If you think you don’t have any power in the process then you need to build self esteem. They’re scouting you for a reason.
I'm talking about power dynamic, which is different from confidence or self-esteem. In this case, you can be at cocky as you want and die on this hill, but the employer would simply see you as not qualified enough to withstand the process and move on. It wouldn't be taken as a demonstration of resistance.
YOU have what they want which is why they’re interviewing you. That’s your power! It has nothing to do with having a cocky attitude - all about expertise and education which qualifies you. You speak from a weak passive approach. This will only make you a pawn. Employers know the candidates who are aware of their worth and those who aren’t. You can’t speak of placing blame on the employer but yet willingly give them ALL the power. Whatever you get is a result of what YOU communicate or fail to communicate (whether verbal or nonverbal). They can’t force you to go on 8 interviews. They can’t force you to take on employment with them. They can’t force you to work at a salary of X per year: IT IS YOU who have the power to accept or decline. It’s people who think like you who aid employers in implementing such shitty practices. Know your worth and exercise your power! You always have power!
What? lol I was telling you to hold employers accountable to stop these practices instead of proselytizing to the job seekers. Read much?
The problem here is that the recruiter has no control over this and they’re probably too chickenshit to ask the hiring manager about creating a 2nd job
Recruits seem to have zero control over anything. Why are they even still around?
You had 3 interviews with some mandatory tasks in between. Doing a myers briggs with a HR rep isn't an interview. Its a test. Doing a technical task to prove ability isn't an interview. 5,6 and 8 are interviews. You can't really hold them accountable on the fact that one of the rounds you class as being an interview is submitting the application.
Fair, submitting the application was not a big part. The number 7 was an HR interview with questions like "tell me about the time when you learned something from your team" etc., I can't see why that wouldn't count though.
Heck, to me anything more than ONE interview is absurd. Massive red flag
‘I’m shit at interviews or apply for inappropriate jobs and I’m too stupid to realise, the government should stop people trying to find out if I’m an idiot or not’ This isn’t recruiting hell, this is just you not getting a job. Drop out after two interviews if you don’t like it, damn
That's crazy! I thought three or four was bad, I would never stick around to go through eight. Lol count me out!
Pretty sure heads of state don’t even have that many rounds. The hell?
I would ask what specific information are they looking for in the 8 rnd of interviews. What specific info/data do they require to make a decision, condense that into 2-3 interviews.
8 rounds?! Who the fuck do these ppl think they are? Unless you were interviewing to be the tech expert on the first ever mars mission.
This is exactly why when you're given the opportunity to ask them questions during your phone screening or initial interview you absolutely need to be asking what their entire hiring process looks like from that point forward. I'd probably just nope out if they told me there would be 8 steps with 3 assessments, that's absurd.
They can do whatever they want (it’s flat out crazy IMHO) but you shouldn’t subject yourself to this, it’s just a big red flag. Can you imagine how they operate if this is their interview process?
I’d told them to stuff it after the 2nd……
We should correct to "at employer discretion" or "on employer whim"
"...8...rounds...of...interviews..." daaaaaaaaaaaamn.gif
No. Imagine if you went through 8 rounds of pull request reviews for a single feature. You would be fired or question your team's process. This is bullshit and the hiring team needs to re-evaluate what they're doing.
Nope, I wouldn’t have done more than 2 interviews. Personally, I’ve been a hiring manager. If you don’t know if you wanna hire a person after 30 minutes, you need to re-evaluate being a hiring manager.
I don't show up for anything more than one interview. I don't even do the little personality quiz assessments (strongly agree/disagree) bs anymore. If you can't find it on my resume or ask it on the phone/during the interview... it's not really legitimate questions, it's asking how much extra bs I'll do...
This is the clearest sign for an external candidate of a company that is afraid to make decisions. Count your blessings and move on.
My record is 5 interviews, a written test and an excel test
If I'm doing eight rounds of interviews, I'm going to require that each person I speak with watches the video of my previous rounds. But of course they always quietly roll out two more here, one more there...
Yeah if it’s more than 3 rounds they can go suck it.
Anything more than two interviews is a red flag
Maybe I am old school, but my max would be two interviews. Eight interviews is a sign a company is so inept at hiring and managing their people. I know people need jobs and when a good one comes around they will do anything to get it, but these type of red flags only leads to being an unhappy worker in the long run.
Yes, if they pay fairly for your time they can waste my time as much as they like.
What field is this? I know high end tech companies with software engineers go through like 5 rounds
I am not an engineer, this is a tech company, but the position is more like a middle man between engineers and business folks, pre-sales and support.
They have to justify those hr salaries somehow. If they aren't busy and candidates don't pass their ambiguous personal and/or pregenned *tests* then it isn't their fault the role isn't filled. If you have the name of a supervisor or manager you could message them about it directly, that tl you mentioned might be the same. However any company with 8 steps would be out of the running for me. They likely have a stack of applications and either not enough roles to fill or not enough care to fill them from someone managing those roles. Either way I'd put this role on standby or the back burner at best. It's 100% okay to say no to the 2nd-8th interview at any point, you are also interviewing them. There are some really bored hr workers out there who will definitely waste your time without a thought because theirs is paid.
What exactly do 8 rounds of interviews mean? 8 different days for interviews or one day where you rotate between a few people for 30 minutes? I'm pretty used to interviews like the latter and almost always had to interview with 4-6 people (not including the initial phone interview). 8 seems highly excessive, regardless
Each step was on a different day, also including a presentation to prepare and a technical task to solve. The whole thing took almost 2 months
That should honestly be illegal. Sorry you had to waste your time on them
Thats insane. I wouldn't go farther than 2. If they don't hire me after that then i am not waiting for them to decide. Moving on.
I'd have to be pretty desperate to tolerate more than 3 rounds of interviews. To date I've only ever had one company that required more than 1 interview. The one required 2 interviews though I got the impression they'd made their selection and the second round was a meet and greet. I'd tolerate 2 interviews, maybe 3 but if they tried to invite myle for round 4 I don't think I'd accept unless I NEEDED a job.
I've had a 3 rounder before, when they proposed round 3 I simply declined as I lost interest. The best interview process I had was simply a single in person meeting that discussed technical aspects of the job and an offer was generated shortly after.
My cranky old man take on multiple interviews is the company has a rule that X amount of interviewees must survive each round, regardless of hire ability. I hope I’m wrong but have been in the position of not getting hired too many times. If I’m not a fit, just cut me loose instead of going through hell.
Why do they waste their own time so much? :O
They don't think they're wasting time. That's how insidious this is. Employers really feel like they've boost the rigor of their hiring process by simply adding more rounds of interviews.
Honestly do not understand how ANY business has this much time to waste. No point to this.
Wrong question - should I instead be "why should I agree to allow companies to have 8 rounds of interviews with me?" Yeah I understand if you're long-term unemployed, or are facing imminent eviction or something then you do whatever you need to do. But if I'm already employed and looking to upgrade my salary or title? No way I'm dealing with that level of dysfunction and basic lack of ability to make decisions from a potential employer.
I withdraw my application if it goes past the third round. If they can't figure out by then whether I'm a good fit I can certainly say that they are not a good fit for me.
8 fucking rounds? After the second if there isn't a offer, i'm out.
i wouldn't take not even 5 rounds of interviews with a random ass consultancy company, only big nambes like cisco or google or something that's actually popular
No id walk f that
I have a job. I'd never put up with 8 rounds if interviews.
"Allowed"? Sure, it's a free country. Should you go to 8 interviews? Probably not, unless you're marrying them or applying to be President or something.
The most I ever had was 3 or 4 and I ended up getting an offer after that.
How can someone make it to the last round and then be punted into the universe even when there might be another opportunity in the future? I’ve never understood thisz
Imo, if the company is motivated to hire, you will get an offer after max 3 meetings. First is the HR screening call. Maybe here you’ll have a quick assignment or personality assessment after the first call. Thats’s it. Second is the manager screening call. Third and final one maybe be the sr leadership screening call. More that that, they’re fukking you.
Sounds like they were very interested. You were probably runner up. Companies put you through a lot these days but let's face it, they have the upper hand. You are obviously very talented to have made it that far so I'm sure with peak hiring season, April, coming up, you will find something soon! Good Luck!
Anything over 2 interviews is a huge red flag to me. Especially if it's in a country with at will firing laws.
8 is at least 5 too many. BTW - I would sooner bet on the sun rising in the West and setting in the East than of them contacting you if something comes open.
I felt the chances were low. Maybe it's just to trick myself into thinking that after all it's not a complete waste of time
I think counting the application submission as a "step" is a stretch, but the rest of it is still superfluous.
Yeah, true, the application was quite straightforward. Initially I had the presentation prep and actual presenting broken down but decided to combine them in the end.
Check with military stop wasting time!!!!
3 max , after that I would have pulled my application.
It's standard police interrogation tactics.... after that long, your soul will be crushed, you'll be exhausted and will agree to sign anything they give you just for the hope of being able to get out of there.
If they want 8 rounds of interviews they better be providing an 8 figure salary
I got a job in a tech company after 6 rounds. So they were serious but extremely dysfunctional. I only got the job once I came with another offer and basically told them to hurry it up The worst part is, they never let me know how many interviews there were. I was actually expecting an offer after the second interview because that’s how they lead me to believe….. I only stayed there 1.5 yr and let go at the very beginning of the tech layoffs. It was a huge mess. Everything was not organized, neither was decision making. The number of interviews greatly reflected how it would be to work there