[hn_throwaway_99]

> no other part of the interview pipeline was predictive at all. Not whiteboarding, not presenting, not personality interviews, not culture fit testing, not credentials, or where experience came from, nothing

Did you test predictive power from individual interviewers? At a company I worked at previously we did, and this was the by far the best overall predictor: some interviewers just did a much better job at identifying those likely to succeed than others. Which can explain another reason why you didn't see much predictive power if you looked across those other items over all interviewers - the variance between interviewers essentially "swamps" any smaller differences between those interview techniques.

Note this didn't surprise me that much, as you see this dynamic in lots of other "person-to-person" endeavors. For example, when looking at whether one type of psychotherapy intervention is better than another, most of the data that I've seen shows that by far the most important factor is the skill and "match" between therapist and client, far more important than any individual modality.

[kasey_junk]

We did. There were small differences between them, same with what questions they asked. But nowhere near as predictive as the code work. I suggested but was never able to get approved, removing interviews entirely.

Again, we didn’t have enough data points for real statistical validity so it could be that, but I became convinced that it didn’t matter who was interviewing or the format of the interview. Some candidates are good at interviewing and some aren’t but that didn’t hold to the job.