If their hiring process is 7 rounds they’re not hiring talent, they’re hiring people willing to jump through hoops, give up all dignity, and be subservience.
Same with group interviews. It’s not about talent, it’s about who will be the best little lap dog.
I have to disagree with the group interview part. There are definite uses for it, especially when you work on something that absolutely demands collaboration. You can pretty quickly see who will dominate a discussion or try to do everything themselves, and who will give everyone a fair shake. If the company cares about their culture and not just raw talent, they can learn a lot from group interviews. It also helps if youre hiring A LOT of people.
My company hires 100+ college graduates every year. Group interviews are an essential part of the process. I still work with some of the people in my group interview from 15 years ago
What you’re describing is just the most pessimistic view towards work broadly, it’s going to feel like that no matter what your hiring process looks like.
It’s more accurate to say that if a company makes you go through extended steps and strings you along, it’s more likely they’re flexing for private equity and have no intention of staying in business.
I did hiring, I needed help, and I did multi-step interviews because I really don’t want to waste time with people who don’t want to work. When your job is managing others, you will be the bad guy to everyone who hates working, and you need to weed those people out before they cost you and other people on the team just trying to get through the day.
That said, 7 steps is absurd, but it’s totally reasonable to expect an interview with your direct manager and one or two more with your direct manager’s boss and/or HR.
Also, group-interviews don’t mean they’re treating you like a performer, that’s again the anti-work pessimism, but it is ridiculous if more than three people are interviewing you in a single meeting, depending on what the work entails.
If their hiring process is 7 rounds they’re not hiring talent, they’re hiring people willing to jump through hoops, give up all dignity, and be subservience.
Same with group interviews. It’s not about talent, it’s about who will be the best little lap dog.
I have to disagree with the group interview part. There are definite uses for it, especially when you work on something that absolutely demands collaboration. You can pretty quickly see who will dominate a discussion or try to do everything themselves, and who will give everyone a fair shake. If the company cares about their culture and not just raw talent, they can learn a lot from group interviews. It also helps if youre hiring A LOT of people.
My company hires 100+ college graduates every year. Group interviews are an essential part of the process. I still work with some of the people in my group interview from 15 years ago
“Culture fit” means “are you going to disrupt our little codependent circle-jerk?”
What you’re describing is just the most pessimistic view towards work broadly, it’s going to feel like that no matter what your hiring process looks like.
It’s more accurate to say that if a company makes you go through extended steps and strings you along, it’s more likely they’re flexing for private equity and have no intention of staying in business.
I did hiring, I needed help, and I did multi-step interviews because I really don’t want to waste time with people who don’t want to work. When your job is managing others, you will be the bad guy to everyone who hates working, and you need to weed those people out before they cost you and other people on the team just trying to get through the day.
That said, 7 steps is absurd, but it’s totally reasonable to expect an interview with your direct manager and one or two more with your direct manager’s boss and/or HR.
Also, group-interviews don’t mean they’re treating you like a performer, that’s again the anti-work pessimism, but it is ridiculous if more than three people are interviewing you in a single meeting, depending on what the work entails.