|
|
|
|
|
|
by pradeep_m
3205 days ago
|
|
|
Yes, I'd agree they are a closer comparable. Our primary difference is that our interview process is personalized to each individual candidate because we match candidates to an independent interviewer relevant to their domain and field of interest. We don't specify what the interviewer should ask. Instead our direction to them is: "We matched this candidate to you because they expressed these skills/interests. Try to identify where their strengths are and if you would recommend them for a role in your specialty." The evaluations our interviewers write as a result gives us a lot of nuance and evidence to match candidates with the best roles for them. The fact that the interviewers are independent is also another differentiator. This gives candidates an opportunity to make a valuable connection, and we expect interviewers to take ~10-15 min at the end to share feedback on the candidate's performance, how they can improve, and answer any questions / share personalized advice. We have heard many frustrated accounts from our candidates about receiving rejections with no feedback and how this is one of their most valued benefits of our approach. On the scaling point - it's a very good question. We are collecting a lot of data about each interviewer and specifically their skill at evaluating skill (i.e., how predictive is their evaluation). So over time, we will be able to understand interviewer strength and what they are qualified to evaluate, and seniority of the interviewer becomes less important. |
|
|
Instead of banking on an interviewer's reputation, you would in essence be asking companies to trust your ability "to understand interviewer strength and what they are qualified to evaluate". Not so sure how well that'll work...