I run coding interviews at BIGCO. Half of the candidate success relies on the skills of the interviewer. A bad interviewer can bomb the best candidates.
Something I have changed my stance on a bit is automated coding interviews. I used to be adamantly against a company giving candidates automated code tests, but I see now that it takes the interviewer out of the equation.
Pre-screening, depending on how it’s done, could eliminate good candidates.
There have been times I’ve received answers in interview that weren’t the written answers, but I looked it up afterward and tested it out… and they were right. I learned something news and tweaked the answer reference as a result. If those questions were in the pre-screening instead of asked directly by me, it would have filtered out good people.
I remember fighting to get access to the pre-screen data to see what the answers were and find if there were any other cases like this, where the non-technical pre-screener was filtering out potentially good candidates, because we couldn’t give them exhaustive answers to questions being asked.
>but I see now that it takes the interviewer out of the equation.
Well yes, that's why I'm against it. A one way "interview" is an audition, not an interview. There's nothing worse than wasting 2, 5, 10+ hours on something that ends up with a template rejection letter.
That's great for the interviewer, but devastating for the interviewee. They can't even get feedback on how to improve.
Nobody is going to give an interviewee feedback, even if they are interviewed by a human. There is too much legal risk to open the company up to discrimination lawsuits.
There is also nothing worse than wasting 2, 5, 10+ hours on an in person interview to just have the interviewer flunk you our be unfair to you.
I still believe that personal interviews are important, I'm just raising the fact that a large portion of an interviewee's success is based upon their interviewer.
Yes, and actions have consequences I'm not going to audition if I have not at least talked to a human first. The game industry in particular does this to abuse Artists and Designers with spec work, so I feel especially strong about the power dynamic here.
>There is also nothing worse than wasting 2, 5, 10+ hours on an in person interview to just have the interviewer flunk you our be unfair to you
The interview stage inflation is definitely a problem, but speaking with actual people still has benefits. You get an idea of their culture and you can still network even in such a situation. It's not guaranteed but you get a much higher chance to get advice and feedback on or off the record if you're polite. People are flexible, some standardized exam may never even reach a human.
>'m just raising the fact that a large portion of an interviewee's success is based upon their interviewer.
Indeed. I'm just stating a viewpoint where an interview needs to be personal. An audition in this software space is about as impersonal as you can get.
As an interviewer at Google, we arent given an exact list of questions to ask or what to evaluate (there are broad categories).
It is really entirely up to each interviewer how the interview goes and they are usually scheduled between 2 other meetings so often the interviewer is distracted.
Something I have changed my stance on a bit is automated coding interviews. I used to be adamantly against a company giving candidates automated code tests, but I see now that it takes the interviewer out of the equation.