[binarydreams]

Software engineer with 10+yrs experience and was on a break for 3+ yrs. I haven't done outbound yet ("applied" to companies). Mostly got referred to companies/startups through folks in my network. Remote work is an important requirement for the time being.

So I spoke to 15 (remote-friendly/first) companies through my network (could've been more if I were up for onsite work), 4 started the interview process (rest had hiring freeze or wanted to prioritize folks that got laid off from FAANG) out of which:

- 1 ghosted me in the last round

- 1 rejected in the last round without any reason/feedback (although I think I did pretty well)

- 1 rejected in the first round because they wanted me to stick to a specific programming language (in their leetcode round) that I am now rusty with

- 1 rejected me in the last round on fair grounds and were decent enough to give feedback. I believe I made mistakes out of being super desperate to land a job.

One thing I noticed (although small sample set) was that the interview processes are very slow (like 1 round per week). This might mean things like companies are in no hurry to hire and they have abundance of candidates applying for the same positions at different "expected CTCs" making it a buyer's market. I am currently interviewing another company who has scheduled the next round to happen after 2 weeks.

Also no inbounds on Linkedin from recruiters. I used to be swamped till like July/August. Probably means there's decent amount of hiring freeze and most of the recruiters are fired?

Tbh, even though I got rejected in a few places, I did not feel too bad because I did not "feel" like they were doing solid engineering work (I ask lots of questions about the tech stack, challenges, culture, etc. in each round).

I've decided to spend a few months upskilling myself till the situation gets better and take the hiring process slow (rather being desperate). Although lucky to be in a position to be able to do so.

[ericbarrett]

> One thing I noticed...was that the interview processes are very slow

We're thick into the holiday season. I wouldn't expect anything to speed up until January, regardless of market conditions.

[trentnix]

> One thing I noticed (although small sample set) was that the interview processes are very slow (like 1 round per week).

Yep. And almost everyone is hiring by committee now. Because if the committee hires the wrong person, nobody hires the wrong person.

And with all of these people involved, now you are subject to the calendars of the various very busy “stakeholders”. One company I engaged with had me talk to 11 people between individual interviews and panel interviews. That’s 11 calendars to coordinate, with illness and PTO and holidays and on and on to sort through.

I had one situation where I had to wait two weeks for one of the interviewers to have a spot open on their calendar. “She is so busy”, I was assured. They eventually extended an offer, but this and other warning signs made it clear it wasn’t a fit, so I respectfully declined.

[endtime]

> And almost everyone is hiring by committee now. Because if the committee hires the wrong person, nobody hires the wrong person.

At least in some cases, it's a reaction to some managers having made hiring decisions perceived by leadership as mistakes. Impersonal and bureaucratic as it might be, to the extent it keeps the bar higher I think it's a good thing.

[trentnix]

I understand that reasoning, but I don’t think it bears out.

It results in frequently hiring the lowest common denominator. No risks are taken. Bold thinking is suppressed. It trains your managers, whom you don’t trust to hire their own team members, that leadership is done by committees.

And what’s the solution to a bad committee hire? A bigger committee.

[endtime]

All fair points. It probably depends a lot on the size of the company. At some stages you need to take risks; at others, you need to prioritize avoiding bad hires.

[binarydreams]

Could you elaborate on "other warning signs"? Maybe others could learn a thing or two.

[trentnix]

Absolutely. In the case I mentioned, interviewers did more talking than asking and listening, interviews were far too easy (I’m glad you like me but if you can’t really discern whether I’m good at my job, you’ve probably hired other people who are bad at theirs), and bad answers to questions about their business model (when stock options were part of the compensation package).

It just didn’t feel like a fit.

[akhmatova]

interviews were far too easy (I’m glad you like me but if you can’t really discern whether I’m good at my job, you’ve probably hired other people who are bad at theirs),

Maybe they have ways of evaluating your potential without subjecting you to an endless barrage of gratuitously difficult (or simply tedious) questioning.

[trentnix]

Maybe, and it’s flattering to think that. But I have to make my decisions based on the data I have.

[yonaguska]

I give "easy" interviews to people that have shown signs that I can trust their technical work. I far more interested in their communication and organizational skills once we get past the technical aspect of it. As well as their higher level "engineering" experience. What I mean by this is- when we're planning a complex feature, I want someone that has the experience and communication skills to stand up to the team and not be a yes man, point out potential issues and concerns and propose better ideas. Leetcode is not an indicator of this. The interview may feel easy to the person being interviewed, in the sense that there isn't wrong answers, rather, there could be an absence of correct answers.

[pnathan]

The holidays are rolling in the US, too, so I expect that getting scheduled for interviews is going to be pure grief until Jan.

[nonethewiser]

When you say on break for 3+ years, do you mean that you didnt work for 3+ years leading up to these interviews?

[binarydreams]

I did some hands-on contract work last 10 months but the rest was "no work" yeah. So 3+ years of being out of a full-time role.

[Bluecobra]

So you spent roughly a quarter of your career not working? That's likely a red flag for a hiring manager. Why would they risk hiring you and you quit when they can hire someone with no gaps in their history? Should they care about this? No, but that's just the way it is and employment gaps are not a protected class.

[type-r]

not in my experience. coming out of college, i worked for 3 years then took 18 months off. nobody i spoke to cared. if they asked about it, it was out of genuine interest for what i got into during that time.

[ProZsolt]

Same for me. After my first job (3.5 years) I took a 1.5 year long sabbatical to travel around New Zealand. I even put that on my CV. I think it made me more interesting for the interviewer.

[mastersummoner]

To me, break implies it was chosen for personal reasons. But I'll let GP answer for sure.