With remote interviews it’s at least common to see a ‘round’ scattered over multiple days and time slots, rather than a single visit with multiple interviewers in a row.
Paying for someone’s time is… tricky. If a company doesn’t pay, and the candidate is willing to do the interviews, it is a signal that both are expecting positive financial outcomes overall (ie both sides foresee fit).
The moment you start paying for people to interview, that signal gets weaker. Likely compensated by stricter resume filters. Its a disadvantage for people with uncommon profiles or less experience. (And an advantage for those that have more experience and some big names on their CV)
Opposite IME. Interviews go both ways. Senior people will be pickier while the more desperate and junior are the ones who will accept an offer from a company without properly assessing what they're entering.
You want to attract candidates that have a high probability of being hired.
If vJ is the perceived value of getting the job, pJ the perceived probability of getting the job, vI the value of the literal payment for going through the interview process, and vT the perceived value of one's time (and any other cost if it exists, such as travel) required to go through the process, we can represent the expected value of going through the interview process as:
EV = pJ * vJ + vI - vT
If we assume vJ >> vI and vJ >> vT (which I think is reasonable if you want the job), we can observe that the importance of vI and vT mostly depends on pJ.
I also assume that the candidate would choose where and whether to apply based on EV for their various options.
One one end, if your pJ is close to 1 (you're highly qualified for the job and will likely get it), the result is dominated by pJ * vJ which is ~= vJ; vI and vT matter little. This means that if you will probably get the job, it doesn't really matter much whether the interview is paid (and it also doesn't matter as much how much time it takes). For top candidates, the difference in pJ * vJ for different companies should be the dominant factor, i.e. they will apply for the best jobs.
On the other end, if your pJ is close to 0 (you're applying on a long shot), then vI and vT become much more significant factors. If your chance to get the job is really low, then the interview being paid makes it significantly more attractive, and it also matters more how much time it takes. The companies that pay for interviews, and companies that are easy to apply and interview for are likely the ones with the highest EV for the poorer candidates.
Basically the worse of a candidate you are for the job, the more important it is for the interview to be paid, because with a low enough probability of getting the job, this payment becomes a big factor in the expected value of doing the interview.
Of course it's not as simple as that, because people are not machines chasing pure financial interest and have feelings about how you treat them. Also, a highly qualified candidate is more likely to have a job that is closer to the one they're applying for, while an unqualified candidate might have a much worse job, making vJ higher for the less qualified candidate. But it is likely that the relative difference in pJ is much greater between a qualified and unqualified candidate than the relative difference in vJ. The candidate's own perception of the probability of being hired (pJ) might also be unrealistic in either direction, and I'm assuming it is a good predictor of the true probability of being hired. But I think in general the rule should hold, paid interviews would decrease the quality of the candidate pool.
Why do you expect employers would pay you? I mean, what if you don't pass it, or even worse, what if the company offers you a job that you decline near the end? Where would the money go?
Receiving a salary is not the thing you can expect when you're not doing the work... I mean cmon.. Plus the real salaries upon landing the job will be the top of the crop, so, I think expecting payment for interviewing is... Quite the entitlement.
I mean, would you pay money to a handyman if he'd show up near your roof and showed you how he uses his tools and how he WILL EVENTUALLY work, but, not really fixing it?
It's not uncommon for tradespersons to charge to come out and quote.
Having said that, I think paying people to interview for 6-figure salary jobs (AUD) is a non-starter to me. If a company is stretching your interviews out to the extent it's a waste of time, that's a signal that it's not a place you want to work.
> would you pay money to a handyman if he'd show up near your roof and showed you how he uses his tools and how he WILL EVENTUALLY work, but, not really fixing it?
If that was my idea not the handyman’s? Yes. I would expect them to charge for their time.
It's the interviewee's decision to attend, or not.
I don't think many handymen offered a chance for a two year, full-time building gig would say "sure, wire me $100 for the consultation and I'll come over", and if they did they'd be smart enough to realise they were politely turning down the job.
Frankly, "too preoccupied with the idea of getting paid for a single day of producing no output to take into account the potential to earn $xx,xxx more over the course of the year", sounds like an excellent way for employers to filter out candidates who have low interest in or confidence of getting the job or poor decision-making ability...
I think this hits the nail in the head for the argument I was trying to make: if you as a candidate feel the process is too long or daunting for you, you don't have to attend. It's that simple. Why would you expect compensation if people will do it for free or because they just want to take a shot at the job? To me it truly feels like entitlement... And of course the vast majority of us, myself included, can apply to "lesser known" companies, be done with interviews in a couple of days and it'll all also be good... Obviously compensation will come according to the effort... Demanding money for providing just a signal is useless
The company wants a day of your life, jumping through hoops to please them, providing “signal” for them, competing for the chance of them abusing you to extract value from you, and they want it for free.
Yes, entitlement is possibly a good description there. It’s far too one-sided. If they had to pay they’d suddenly find ways to get “signal” much more efficiently and effectively.
If a candidate assumes the hiring team is “competing to abuse them”, I’m happy with more or less anything that filters out people with that attitude.
Entitlement cuts both ways. Software development pays very well and largely has excellent working conditions, it’s basically a golden ticket. I know people who are essentially stuck in minimum or low wage jobs for life.
No but I also certainly won't expect the handyman to spend a day unpaid at my house talking trade before I decide if I really want their services or not.
However, if a for-profit company wanted me to spend essentially a full day of my time off work so that I can go and interview to make them more money than they'd be paying me - yeah that doesn't sound right at all unless you're straight out of school.
I know what you're saying with your handyman argument but that is a false equivalency.
I've had an interview in February, one in March, two in April, and will have one in June, all with the same company. Unpaid, of course. I also think it's insane, but when you're just graduated and unemployed, what else can you do?
Pretty much all my interviews except in Meta. This is in India though.
Meta was the most organized but even that interview went over 2 weeks.
My Walmart interview lasted 2+ months. Round1 week1, round 2 week 3 etc etc.
This is for Staff+ level positions.
EDIT: Just to state, companies do give enough time to prepare for the interview. I am only talking about the interviewing duration, not the prep time.
The culture is so different here in Australia and New Zealand.
I've done a lot of interviewing of candidates over the last 12~ years or so - here are some generalisations based on my experience and that of my peers for tech roles:
- 95% of the time it's 2-3 interviews / meetings. I have seen a single interview be enough when the person is already known to the team and the interview went well confirming and clarifying existing knowledge of the person.
- The first is usually a call with people and culture / the internal recruiter - high level intro and general culture fit. These tend to be between 15-30 minutes. You should usually know if you're being offered another interview by the end of the call - or within a few days at most and have the next (main) interview setup for the next week or two at most.
- Then if the role is for a developer / programmer or design / UX the candidate is usually sent a coding (or design) test which can be done remotely and will usually take 30-120 minutes but this obviously varies depending on the test, role, and persons abilities.
- Second is often a technical and team fit interview with two people in or working closely with the team / department you're hiring for. These are usually around 45-90 minutes. You should usually hear back about this within a day or two, and if another interview is required you would hopefully have that booked in for some time in the next week or two.
- A third is often done if the team/tech lead wasn't in a previous session - or if the interviewers can't agree or get a good feel for the candidate.
Paying for someone’s time is… tricky. If a company doesn’t pay, and the candidate is willing to do the interviews, it is a signal that both are expecting positive financial outcomes overall (ie both sides foresee fit).
The moment you start paying for people to interview, that signal gets weaker. Likely compensated by stricter resume filters. Its a disadvantage for people with uncommon profiles or less experience. (And an advantage for those that have more experience and some big names on their CV)