True, but they'd probably be better with a hire/fire fast attitude than draw out the interview process... Interviews take time away from the people doing the interviews that can be spent doing other things... do you really want to allocate more than half your company for weeks vs. getting stuff done.

I mean, have a trial period of a week or three... That will tell you far more than a gauntlet interview process with a lot of false negatives.

For me, as a CEO, hire/fire fast is definitely more costly than a well-designed interview "gauntlet"

Before starting my own company I was a bar raiser at Amazon. Interviews were not supposed to last weeks (though many did and there were internal metrics aimed at driving interview to offer cycle time down).

I'd much rather spend a few hours per interviewer per candidate getting a solid candidate than hiring, onboarding, training, learning the candidate is a poor fit, and ultimately going through the not-fun-for-anyone firing process.

High turnover isn't worth the lost productivity from other employees or the hit to morale. On top of that, while learning whether or not the candidate will make it through the trial, you're burning precious cash.

Learn how to interview and teach your people how to interview. It will save you heartache and money.

But do whiteboard exercises that consist of concepts that someone is unlikely to ever touch really count for the quality of code one is likely to output?

Especially when many of those concepts necessitate code that is less than discoverable, well documented and easy to follow?

A 3 week trial period is a far longer than an Amazon interview sequence.

For one person.. not for a few dozen... It's easy enough to pick the apparent best from the available pool much faster.

Also, there's the cost of existing staff in interviews... if you only have 2-3 devs, and you're keeping them all in interviews with multiple candidates, you're not getting work done.