Your "creative" interviewing process sucks and is probably useless.

[RH | 4,924]

So, this is a bit of a rant paired with a bit of advice for any of you that might be responsible for interviewing new hires.  My simple suggestion is this--keep it simple.  Don't get creative, ask good questions and be sure you get to know your candidates.  Seems obvious.

Ok, rant time.  A couple of weeks ago I had a job interview with a Fortune 500 company.  This company isn't a tech company (I'm a software engineering contractor) and I was actually interested in working with them based off the job requirements and some info I gleaned about the culture.  As you may have guessed, I was just told they are "going in a different direct", which is code that I didn't make it.

This is not a problem.  As a contractor, I have to go through a lot of interviews to get the work I want and for various reasons, many of the interviews never pan out.  Some go well, some don't.  Sometimes they do go well and the hiring manager goes to HR to find out they don't have the funds to bring me on.  This happens a lot more than you'd think.  And then there are also times where after the interview I might get an offer but I'm not interested in working with that company.  I know the game and I play it well.  So why has this last interview agitated me?

Well, like I said, the company culture seemed a good fit for me from the job description that was written up, plus what was explained in the interview.  I knew I could do the work but I also knew I could provided a lot of help to the project and their specific needs.  I saw the needs and I was highly motivated to jump in and help and it sounded enjoyable to me and not just like another paycheck.

But, I never got that chance because apparently the interview didn't go well.  I could let this slide but from the beginning, I knew that due to their "creative" interviewing process there was a good chance that myself, and potentially many talented devs, were going to slip through their fingers.

In case of this interview, it was a two hour meeting with 4 people from the company... and 6 (yes, 6) people interviewing for 6 positions all at the same time, on the same Zoom meeting.  The conversations were fast, they were vague, every interviewee was asked one specific semi-technical question, while there were a slew of questions with an open floor for discussion.  I didn't know what they were looking for in regards to personality and response.  When an open question was posted to the group, I would try to answer but after being the first to respond on any new question I'd pause to give someone else a chance to answer on following questions.  I didn't want to seem overbearing and I wanted to be polite.  Sure enough though, there was one guy who answer every question and "hogged" the time.  I have no clue if he got the job.  Maybe that's what they wanted?  Maybe they didn't and because he took up 75% of the "open air" time, me and the four other interviewers missed out to shine.  I don't know?

I honestly feel like I missed an opportunity because when I went into the interview, I didn't how to act or respond.  I also didn't feel like this was a game they were playing.  Regardless, the whole process felt like a waste of my time, and likely theirs too.

So, what interviews have I had that worked?  It's simple.  The ones that were conversational, with me and a few other workers with the company.  The interviewers took a bit of time to catch up with my background, asked about past projects, asked a few technical questions to make sure I knew what I was talking about and last they provided ample time for me to ask questions.  It's not sexy, different or cool.  It's a standard interview.  I'll spare how to be a great interviewee in that context, but every time I've had a "creative" interview, it's often come with red flags and I've either not gotten the job or I've actually turned down the offers because they ended up being lowball or obviously poorly managed.  I'm only agitated with this last interview because this is the first time I've have had a creative interview setup where I didn't see any red-flags that it was a bad place, and I actually wanted to be there to do the work.

TL;DR: If you want to hire good people, don't make it weird and creative.  Just give the interviewee the experience they expect but take the time to know them, pointedly drill down into their expertise and then let them have a bit of time to ask questions to get to know you.  You both want to find a place that's a good fit for everyone.  These oddball interviews never work well.  Just don't do it.

Edited June 8, 2021 by RH

[JamesRobot | 5,808]

Definitely a stupid format.  I would say they were looking for a "leader" with a format like that and probably went with the ball hog which is among the worst types of leader. 

To ace that one, you'd want to chime in early and then solicit ideas.  "I'd do 'this' given the situation.  Bob had some good ideas on that last scenario, how would you tackle that, Bob?"

But yeah, tough to realize what their aiming for when you get thrown a curve ball at the start.

Edited June 8, 2021 by JamesRobot

[DefaultGen | 5,414]

My favorite bad interview was a huge group interview for Freddie Mac, 2012 or so. Maybe 50-100 people round robining between different interviewer stations. It seemed... impersonal and bad. But the best part is we got a FOURTY FIVE MINUTE presentation on why Freddie Mac wasn't a cause of the 2008 financial crisis. It was masquerading as a "So what is Freddie Mac?" presentation but was 100% an attempt to convince people that they weren't involved or at fault in the mortgage crisis. It was hilarious with everyone looking around with the "Is this for real?" look on their face. You know what companies that weren't involved in the 2008 financial crisis don't do? Give you a 45 minute presentation absolving them of being involved.

[DefaultGen | 5,414]

Those guys should just make you write out merge sort in pseudocode on a whiteboard like you're supposed to for a dev job! (Is that still a thing btw)

[RH | 4,924]

8 minutes ago, JamesRobot said:

Definitely a stupid format.  I would say they were looking for a "leader" with a format like that and probably went with the ball hog which is among the worst types of leader. 

To ace that one, you'd want to chime in early and then solicit ideas.  "I'd do 'this' given the situation.  Bob had some good ideas on that last scenario, how would you tackle that, Bob?"

But yeah, tough to realize what their aiming for when you get thrown a curve ball at the start.

You know, I kind of gauged that and tried to push that angle a little.  That would make sense if this was for one position and we were competing for one or two roles.  But, the recruiter told me that they explicitly stated that it wasn't a competition and in a good scenario multiple interviewees could be hired from the same interview.  In that context, this type of interview makes even less sense.  You don't want to hire 2-3 leaders for a single project of 6 developers.  That can cause personality clashes, or at best, you're going to hire people who feel underwhelmed by their lack of opportunity and growth.

It was honestly bizarre and I can't figure it out. Everyone with the company was soooooo laid back, great personalities and nobody had an aggressive "go getter" attitude.  Everyone just seemed genuinely even, pleasant and just wanted to get the job done well.

Someone must have read an article or a book and thought this was a good idea.  That's the only thing that makes logical sense to me.  As I mentioned, creative interviews are often a sign of red flags.  It's my educated guess that this is because poorly managed teams and companies find it tough to blame themselves for deeply rooted, top-level issues.  They get creative looking for that magical worker who could come in and "fix everything" but the fact is, no worker/manager is going to come in and solve problems that are rooted at the top.  It's a different story, but one guy was trying really, really hard to get me into one company.  He was a mid-manager but was was also below the CEO since it was a small company.  It seemed cool at first but as the process went on, it was obvious, this was a poorly managed place and eventually I had to give a firm "I'm not interested, please don't call me back."

[RH | 4,924]

1 minute ago, DefaultGen said:

Those guys should just make you write out merge sort in pseudocode on a whiteboard like you're supposed to for a dev job! (Is that still a thing btw)

I've done stuff like that before.  I LOVE technical interviews like that so long as they give me a locked down PC.  Now whiteboards... bane of my existence. My handwriting is terrible and since I've never had to write on a whiteboard consistently and I'm semi-tall, it's a paaaaiin to write legibly. 

[arch_8ngel | 1,597]

Interviewing multiple people at once like that for a technical role seems incredibly tacky.

[FireHazard51 | 2,046]

Screw that multiple people in one interview process.  Either they are trying some tricky bullshit interview or they collectively said their time isn't worth giving you the time.  Honestly I've had a handful of interviews before but the interview process is a two way street.  They see if you are fit for the job and you decided if you want work for them.  Did they even give you an opportunity to ask them questions about the job or company culture?

[RH | 4,924]

1 minute ago, FireHazard51 said:

Screw that multiple people in one interview process.  Either they are trying some tricky bullshit interview or they collectively said their time isn't worth giving you the time.  Honestly I've had a handful of interviews before but the interview process is a two way street.  They see if you are fit for the job and you decided if you want work for them.  Did they even give you an opportunity to ask them questions about the job or company culture?

Due to the constraints of the meeting, we had about 5 minutes, and it could have probably ran on a bit longer.  Still, you know if you run over you're holding up the time of 4 workers with the company and 6 other interviewers.  I try to walk by the golden rule.  I hate it when someone asks a thousand questions if there's another way of going about getting your answers.  People are busy.  I often am.  So I let it slide since I can be the guy who asks a bunch of questions.

I use to be excited to get any job offer.  Now, as a seasoned worker I've learned that just because I can land a job in a week or two doesn't mean I should take the first offer.  They are interviewing me, but I'm interviewing them.  This process outlined above completely messes with that dynamic.

As a bit more context, the real problem I saw is that this was a non-technical company that had a lot of office work and they had a major tool that hadn't been touched in about 15 years. They were honest about some failed attempts in the past and it felt like they needed some expertise and come in.  Fresh minds, who knew how to transition old software to new hardware and could plan a forward-path for replacement.  It felt like there was a lot of struggle and ignorance, and I actually like coming into places like that when management is humble and solving those problems.

You see, that's why I felt like I was a great fit.  I actually like to get neck deep in poor code and problems and getting working and provide a plan to replace it.  It's nasty work few people like to do.  The people there seemed cool and management didn't seem like a nightmare.  Oh well.  There loss.  I'm just moving on now.

[captmorgandrinker | 1,649]

40 minutes ago, arch_8ngel said:

Interviewing multiple people at once like that for a technical role seems incredibly tacky.

Yep.   MLM, sure, but a regular job it should be one interviewee at a time.

[a3quit4s | 4,105]

I feel like that would be a good interview process for something competitive like sales but for software engineering? No thanks. 

[RH | 4,924]

38 minutes ago, a3quit4s said:

I feel like that would be a good interview process for something competitive like sales but for software engineering? No thanks. 

Get the popcorn, I'd watch that.

[Daniel_Doyce | 475]

Unless you really needed that job, I would have bailed out and considered it an early warning you were lucky to get before you started there.

[DoctorEncore | 3,691]

Wow, that sounds like a terrible way to interview for a job. It basically gives the advantage to the obnoxious, outspoken candidates. If I were with HR and had to use that type of setup, I'd automatically eliminate the person who talked the most and have a follow-up interview with the rest of the candidates.

[Code Monkey | 2,011]

You don't want to work at a place that does that. There are plenty of technology companies that appreciate a good developer more than that.

[RH | 4,924]

2 hours ago, Code Monkey said:

You don't want to work at a place that does that. There are plenty of technology companies that appreciate a good developer more than that.

Oh, I get that. I'm just a different developer by preference. I use to hunt out tech shops but I've found I actually prefer non-IT companies that just need solid help, and might even be in a bit of a bind because they've let the edges slip a little and are paying the price.

I know that sounds weird but most of those places are filled with good, hard working people and once they've earned the respect of the IT/software team, they are appreciative of the wins you give them that help them more easily run their business.

Anyway, yes, the interviewing process was terrible. The people were cool though. In spite of my werewolf game, I am a pretty good at reading people when I interact with them in person. Other than the horrible interview style, it seemed like a good place to be.

I'm honestly over it now. I just wanted to rant a bit and talk about it. Not the worst your of interview I've ever had, but definitely an odd and useless one and, as I said, I was only bummed because I like the team and what I was going to be able to do.

Edited June 9, 2021 by RH

[doner24 | 1,197]

As someone that has interview lots of people in my day, this sounds awful. 

[twiztor | 851]

i've spent plenty of time on both sides of the interview table. 

i cannot comprehend how anyone thought that was a good idea. You are hoping for long-term employees, so you try to gauge not only their work experience but also professionalism, body language, and social skills (among other things). If certainly doesn't sound like you could interpret any of that from a multi-person zoom call.  

This sounds like either an experiment (hopefully 'one-and-done', but should have been a 'never happened') or they had already made another selection but wanted to honor their agreement to interview (i've heard of similar things happening but never experienced this myself). Anyone who greenlit this concept should be reprimanded.

[GPX | 1,370]

The interview process sounds a bit weird. The only thing I can think of is that maybe they wanted to find not just someone with the technical skills, but also a “personality fit” to fit in with the pre-existing group of workers. So how much you respond and how you respond, the group may then select the person they deem best fit for the work environment. 

The person who hogged the interview 75% may actually not be the chosen one by the way. I guess it would feel weird because you’re trying to be polite but at the same time competing with others during the interview session, and not knowing exactly what you need to do in order to “compete”. My take is that this isn’t about you, the interviewee, but more the line of “who’s best fit for the group of interviewers”.