[kluyg]

Yeah, if only it was all unicorns and rainbows. What you describe is how I imagine they interview for director / VP positions. With hundreds (thousands?) of applications per day for software engineering positions, all with perfect resumes, what you describe just doesn’t scale. Software engineers do 1-2 interviews per week each, it’s part of the job. I might be a minority, but I would refuse to spend two of my evenings per week interviewing people. I’d rather spend time with my family instead. I think asking candidates to get a day off for interviews, which happens like once per year or even less often for each candidate is more reasonable than asking your employees to work evenings each week.

[solatic]

> Software engineers do 1-2 interviews per week each, it’s part of the job. I might be a minority, but I would refuse to spend two of my evenings per week interviewing people.

Why are software engineers doing interviews at all? What makes software engineers qualified to interview people (especially when you consider the need to avoid hiring bias, problematic statements by interviewers that expose the company to legal suit, etc.)?

I'm not saying that companies should go to the other extreme and have all interviews conducted by HR - that presents its own set of problems in that HR doesn't know how to evaluate candidates for technical skill. But expecting hiring managers to open up a few evenings per week in the irregular and relatively uncommon circumstance (if it's common, then you have problems with churn on that team, and you should consider firing the manager) in which positions open up on their team to evaluate potential direct reports is not even remotely unreasonable.

[em-bee]

i am right now preparing to fill two positions, and i am looking to interview at least half a dozen people maybe more. due to my schedule i can't really interview more than one per day, so this is going to take a week or two.

i do want the opinions of the people already on my team, because a big part of the interview process is to find out how well they work together. for me hiring is a team decision, not a top down mandate. so yes, all of my software engineers will be doing interviews. there is no way around it.

on the other hand i agree with you. these rounds of interviews should not happen to often. if our team grows, i expect to add two more positions every quarter. (i don't know how realistic this is, but this just to give you an idea of how much interviewing workload i expect.)

[em-bee]

if i am looking for a different job, i'll not just interview with one company, but several. even more so if i still have a job and i really need to weigh the options to decide if the new offer is really better.

there is only so many days i can take off. with two weeks holidays, i might spend all of my holiday budget for this year.

[ghaff]

I'm not sure what you think is a reasonable alternative. In general, having some F2F on-site interviews is in everyone's interest. I'll agree that there should be some reasonable pre-screening before everyone makes a significant time investment. But the reality is that if you're job hunting you may well have to take some time off--especially if the opportunities aren't local.

[em-bee]

i was mainly responding to this: I think asking candidates to get a day off for interviews, which happens like once per year or even less often for each candidate is more reasonable than asking your employees to work evenings each week.

by stating that it is most certainly not just once as i am likely interviewing for multiple jobs.

i don't know what the solution is, but i think it is reasonable to say that some compromise is necessary, and as much as i value your (and my) time with family, if we want to grow our team so that we are not having to work overtime as much and actually get more time for our families, then we'll just have to make some sacrifices.

apologies for being a bit polemic.

actually, i do have a solution for myself. i only hire young people fresh out of university who don't have a job yet. higher positions are filled from within. ask me in a few years how well that's going.

[ghaff]

>i think it is reasonable to say that some compromise is necessary

I'm honestly not sure it is. Half-a-day to a day of on-site interviews (possibly after a phone screen) is how most companies have been filling professional roles for decades. Certainly it's an easier process for people doing it out of university. And it's easier to do locally when a candidate can often just take a few hours off. But, while many debate some of the specifics of how companies screen for technical talent, I don't see widespread pushback against candidates coming in for on-site interviews of some sort.

[elcomet]

Why would you work on evenings? Interviews can and should happen during the day

[em-bee]

it depends on how many candidates you have. a few months ago i was hiring for a position, where i didn't get a single candidate who was able to take time off work. (ok, i had one who took an extended lunch break, but the rest were evening or weekend only)

[apple4ever]

Absolutely.

That being said, if a candidate just couldn't take off work for whatever reason, I am willing to do an evening interview.

Gotta be flexible, on both sides.

[denzil_correa]

> I might be a minority, but I would refuse to spend two of my evenings per week interviewing people. I’d rather spend time with my family instead.

It seems to me this is an issue with your employer not the interview process.

[kluyg]

I was referring to this: > invite the person for a two-hour interview, and schedule it during the call, first offering an evening time slot for the interview.