I have interviewed hundreds of candidates and have been interviewed more times than I’d like to admit. From my experience, most interview loops under-emphasize building the candidate’s understanding of the team, role, and company they’re interviewing for during interviews and instead defer this to the later “selling” stages of the process. I think this is a missed opportunity.
The approach I use to gauge interview quality starts by evaluating them in two dimensions. The first dimension is the strength of signals the interview provides to evaluate key competencies for the role. The second is how effectively the interview provides signal to candidates about the role, team, and company.
- Good interviews focus on a specific set of competencies and yield a strong signal for interviewers to inform a hire/no-hire decision. Many interviews fall into this category.
- Great interviews also maximize signal for the candidate about the role, their future team, and the company. These are gold.
- Sell interviews may not yield a lot of signal to interviewers, but deliver a lot of signal to the candidate. These are necessary, but should be saved for later stages of the loop.
- Weak interviews provide low signal in both dimensions. Replace these as soon as possible.
Interview loops with good interviews produce confident hire/no-hire decisions. Interview loops with great interviews also leave candidates with a deeper understanding of the opportunity, areas of ownership, and ideally, the confidence to accept an offer without much selling if they reach that stage.
Minor tweaks can produce great interviews
During a coding interview with a team working on routing at Uber I was asked: given a set of places and routes between places, write a function that determines if a route exists between a specified start and destination. This is a straightforward graph traversal question, but framing the problem using places and routes, instead of nodes and edges, gave me a deeper appreciation for the team’s mission.
Interviews that explore yet-to-be-solved problems are also very powerful. For example, I love Notion and think it’s a great product, but the search functionality is quite slow for workspaces with a large corpus. Instead of being asked generic design questions, candidates interviewing at Notion could be asked to design a search index for Notion workspaces to build an understanding of product and technical challenges.
Identifying weak interviews
Weak interviews can do more harm than good because they leave candidates with a negative impression of your company. One basic smell test is to ask: are there any interviews in your process that leave candidates confused about why the questions asked are relevant to the role? Ask candidates for feedback after they complete the interview loop. Some candidates will shy away from providing negative feedback (they’re trying to get hired after all) so it’s effective to directly ask questions like “what was your least favorite interview?”
Another approach is to score each interview on signals that are important to candidates. Potential priorities like future team, company and culture, product, technical challenges, and role are important factors to consider for engineering interviews. This will help you identify weak interviews that need improvement.
This framework has served me well for both technical and non-technical interviews. That being said, great interview topics aren’t effective without amazing interviewers. Perhaps that’s a topic for a future post, but for now I’ll leave you with this excellent post about the interview skills ladder.
If you tried any of the strategies above, I’d love to hear how they worked for you.
3 thoughts on “Good interviews vs. great interviews”
Love this blog post. Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this important topic.
Definitely, I agree. The more input like this the better. It’s not clear to me what approached most interviewers take and how confident they can be that they have learned / communicated as much as necessary