Historically, I've tended to do poorly in in-person interviews. I felt my critical thinking and problem solving skills plummet to a fraction of what I am capable of. I initially thought that with enough real-world interviewing experience, I could familiarize myself to the stress, but that never really happened. Interviews tend to be few and far between, so the familiarity never really sticks.
I usually perform better on take home interviews, but 90% the time I'm unwilling to dedicate what are usually days for just a chance to be accepted at a company I may not even want to join. I think many employers use the take home interview as a screener without realizing they need to first cultivate in the candidate the enthusiasm and willingness to complete it.
Some ways companies can encourage me to actually complete the take home interview:
- Provide compelling information about the job (estimated pay/equity, meeting the team, evaluating culture-fit, getting me excited about the problem, etc). Lots of companies save this step for the courting process that happens after the technical screen.
- Pay me a modest amount just to complete it, regardless if I pass or not. I don't care about the money, but at least it won't feel like wasted time.
- Make it way shorter, but then it might be useless.
--
What I'd prefer instead of all this interviewing is still:
1) meet the team, evaluate culture fit, etc.
2) discuss past projects in detail, maybe do a code evaluation if relevant
3) contract for the company for 2-4 weeks at market rate pay. Hell, make a 10-week "internship" out of it, whatever.
4) receive offer (or not)
This is not always practical or scalable, but I've gotten offers 100% of the time this way, including at YC companies and other startups. And from the company's perspective, I think it extricates any unreasonable expectations they have from prospective employees. It's always tempting to look for unicorns when you have hundreds of resumes to choose from, but when you have a likable contractor doing good work, there's no reason not to give him/her an offer. Plus, the employer can evaluate the single most relevant skill in an employee -- the ability to learn.
I usually perform better on take home interviews, but 90% the time I'm unwilling to dedicate what are usually days for just a chance to be accepted at a company I may not even want to join. I think many employers use the take home interview as a screener without realizing they need to first cultivate in the candidate the enthusiasm and willingness to complete it.
Some ways companies can encourage me to actually complete the take home interview:
- Provide compelling information about the job (estimated pay/equity, meeting the team, evaluating culture-fit, getting me excited about the problem, etc). Lots of companies save this step for the courting process that happens after the technical screen.
- Pay me a modest amount just to complete it, regardless if I pass or not. I don't care about the money, but at least it won't feel like wasted time.
- Make it way shorter, but then it might be useless.
--
What I'd prefer instead of all this interviewing is still:
1) meet the team, evaluate culture fit, etc.
2) discuss past projects in detail, maybe do a code evaluation if relevant
3) contract for the company for 2-4 weeks at market rate pay. Hell, make a 10-week "internship" out of it, whatever.
4) receive offer (or not)
This is not always practical or scalable, but I've gotten offers 100% of the time this way, including at YC companies and other startups. And from the company's perspective, I think it extricates any unreasonable expectations they have from prospective employees. It's always tempting to look for unicorns when you have hundreds of resumes to choose from, but when you have a likable contractor doing good work, there's no reason not to give him/her an offer. Plus, the employer can evaluate the single most relevant skill in an employee -- the ability to learn.