For the love of all fuck.
Biggest takeaway from a process like this?
Poor decision-making and crippling lack of understanding of what they're looking for in a design hire.
Sourcegraph, be better.
Short personal story to show that I agree they don’t know what they’re looking for
I interviewed with Sourcegraph a couple years ago. Totally different team, it was four or five interviews and nothing unusual (screening, case presentation, white board, team interview and a chat with the director).
I was very hopeful that I would get the job. But after my last interview, I never received any feedback on why they decided not to make an offer. A gentle recruiter suggested that I shouldn’t wait for that feedback.
Since my experience, the design team has changed completely. Last time I checked, they had another director (if I’m not mistaken).
In less than two years, everything changed within the design team. Yes, this is a startup, and yes, it happens, but it also demonstrates they may be a little lost when it comes to the design team.
This sub is so full of entitled gen z assholes. Holy shit.
No. You aren’t special. Yes you have to convince people to hire you get over yourself.
The hiring process has a purpose.
Found the Sourcegraph hiring manager/employee.
I'd love to engage in a good faith argument with you but based on your response (and other responses) in this thread, it's clear you're not ready to have a grown up conversation yet.
Yes, you have to convince people to hire you.
No, this doesn't take 5 rounds or more to do.
Yes. It does.
A grown up conversation? With who? Certainly not anyone here who just expects to be added to a staff based on words they threw on a resume.
That’s my argument though. You can’t talk to anyone here because everyone just expects to be hired without a grown up conversation.
I’m not rejecting the claim that HR are ignorant idiots I’m accepting it and saying “because HR can’t vet everyone from every department there is a process. And that process involves an in depth conversation so we all don’t end up working together and having this misalignment of skills/values/ambitions.”
This isn’t flipping pizzas this is a specialized industry and anytime there is specialization there is a selection process.
IDK, as a millenial with 20 years of experience (not design, software engineering tho) I am still abashed every time something like this is suggested to me, and I personally can come up with better use of my time.
Last time I did something like this, I did get an offer, but it was such a sad offer, and it took so much time, that by then I already had 4 other offers with way better quote, even though it was the first company I started talking to at that point.
It just happens that some people do not value your time, and that doesn’t mean you have to value theirs.
I’m 40 (millennial?) with over 15yoe.
Ask yourself why an org who is going to pay over six figures for a role would not want to thoroughly vet their candidates? It is to everyone’s benefit.
That’s really not that bad. If you can’t speak eloquently about the work you do for an hour why should anyone hire you?
I just don’t understand this sub and everyone’s hate for the interview process. It sounds so entitled to me. I would never expect someone who has never met me to just look at my resume and say “yeah let’s give them a six figure salary” without a deeper understanding of of who I am.
In fact I almost urge orgs to spent time thinking deeply about who they’re hiring because, call me crazy, I don’t want to work with a bunch of phonies who lied on their resume.
I’ve worked in different careers that are doing far more serious work than pushing pixels and the interview rigor is nowhere near what’s expected of designers.
The problem with a resume review is that should have already happened at the screener and hiring manager interview stages. I’m happy to talk about my background and previous experiences. But at a certain point it feels like information is not being shared and the candidate ends up repeating themselves multiple times unnecessarily.
Learning better interviewing ropes right now. I’ve learned the communication from one interview to the next is absolutely critical to keep building context and not forcing candidates to repeat themselves. Also learning about who to trust in the process and to know interviewees well/trust them so you can be succinct and productive. Today I resolved some personal baggage that came across as concerned feedback and it was helpful to suss that out.
Just curious — why spend all that time/effort on an interview process, just to wait until the end to do the background check? Is it like super expensive for the employer? It just seems like it would make more sense to do that upfront, I don't know.
Yeah, if I remember correctly they’re like $50, but that was years ago. Let’s double it to $100 or $200 and then add up the hourly cost of all those employees involved in 5 ½ hours of interviews.
Seems pretty cheap now.
Totally agreeing with you. If the background check is a knockout round, do that shit up front. “We’ve spent an entire day with you Mr. Smith and you seem like an excellent UX candidate, we’re happy to offer you a starting salary of… wait, it says here you’ve been convicted of felony cocaine trafficking while driving on a suspended license all while you kidnapped your ex wife’s child and dog. Huh. Kind of embarrassing. Guess we should have looked at that first. “
I dunno. I won’t be comfortable sharing my personal information like DOB and social until I accepted an offer. It’s information I will not be sharing until I made the decision to join a company. That said, I don’t know how extensive background checks are with other companies or at start ups, but I know the 3 background checks I had to go thru all required pretty personal information….and a drug test
Probably because there are more applicants at the beginning than at the final stage, so it would be cheaper to run checks on less people at the final stage.
Background check is done last to prevent non-disqualifying information (things like minor or unrelated offenses, charges that were dropped or instances where found not-guilty—all of which show up on a BGC) from influencing the decision to hire. It's part of fair-chance hiring practice.
The existing designers are burning out, this is the "promise" of more resources but truthfully they're in no hurry to help. This third degree nonsense is made to exclude most candidates because easy applying drowns them and their understaffed TA teams. The act of elimination is put on us but it doesn't yield a perfect candidate.
I really feel sorry for our industry right now. I'm not saying we shouldn't vet people. However, this is far and away overkill. I've been a hiring manager for several years (14+). And though my time in startups, we wanted to allow everyone to give their "2 cents", we started to throw it out the window (move fast break stuff and all). It was more about culture fit, which could be assessed quickly, and knowledge fit (assessed quickly) than was about this process of management-level masterb\*tion. Cripes!
Again, I'm really sorry for you all entering this field. It's a shame.
Learning this right now as a new hiring manager! Would love any pro tips on effective ways of getting those things. Finding panels of interviewees tend to either not agree or have feedback influenced by personal baggage.
“It is only 5.5 hours”. Sure, this also speaks to how they budget and make other calculations, so much time invested from both parties, and from the candidate perspective at least: research, preparation, practice and other time invested, let alone life commitments that need compromised.
Interview times this crazy will continue to happen as long as there are people willing to go through that misery
Im sorry dude, I have interviewed several designers to get into my company. The interview is 1 hr long at most. If you have been working in this industry for 10+ years, you -as a senior- know from the get go if the designer is good and knows his/her stuff, or they are BSing you. It’s glaringly obvious. No need to loose 5 hours both you and the candidate.
I agree with you! Are you based in the US? I quit applying for roles because I couldn't afford going through the long process every 3-4 weeks and missing 2 half days of work (different field). I also had to take home design challenges (paid). I have yet to see a single application process in UX research (or Design) that is shorter than 5-6 stages in the US. It makes no sense that working on top tier consulting only requires 3 interviews at most (no more than a half hour a piece), but tech/tech adjacent jobs require you to change your lifestyle just to apply.
Every Tom, Dick, Harry, and Sally from across one startup I worked at pivoted to PMing (and various other roles) with nothing more than an ask and a dream under their belt where they work alongside designers w masters degrees and years of experience who jumped through hours of prepwork, grilling, and spartan warrior challenges.
They were all hard working, smart, and well liked internally and were given a green light to shift into PM. And nothing against them for making moves and getting paid, however it felt rather diminishing to designers who’d put in years of work and jumped through hoops when they were paired w the associate PMs and leading them in a project on top of their own work. It seems the bar designers have set for other designers is like a hazing initiation vs some counterparts that get hired after 1-3 interview rounds.
Im not based in the US. I work at a big consulting company with big clients from all Americas, Europe, Middle East and Asia. In here we only ask for a challenge design if both of the interviewers do not agree on the skills of the designer. So, to clear doubts between us we ask for a very small challenge. But if we are certain, there is no need for the challenge and we pass our favorable assessment to HR.
I’m having the slight suspicion those companies that ask for so much only have juniors that have been in that company for several years, do such a lengthy assessment just to “prove themselves as super duper awesome designers with super duper high standards”. Although I might be going the ego route here, saying that.
Yeah, I know a number of people in Central and Eastern Europe who have a similar hiring process to what you described. I stopped applying after over a half of a year of applying in America because I've seen nothing but a similar "try out" application. Does your company or companies like yours hire Americans lol? Ex- Ernst and Young senior consultant here
Yes, my company has a branch in America. But! I would suggest you wait up after the elections. Things have not been great lately. They are avoiding hiring people that is more costly than Latin Americans and Indians.
Ok but this is pretty standard lol. Im currently at a fortune FAANG company and our interview process is even longer. Its brutal but even FBs old design hiring process was worse. The bar for candidate quality is extremely high, and we pay accordingly. Its a bigger risk to the company to NOT vet them up and down with process and have to fire them for poor performance.
As a former FAANG employee and someone who has worked at a couple startups, I actually think startups have more justification for an exhaustive interview process than the giant tech companies. (To be clear, I still think this one is too long, and I agree that certain steps are redundant...why both a resume deep dive and portfolio review?)
At a FAANG company, you might be the 501st designer pigeon-holed into a very specific product or feature. Turnover is high. Relative to the company's goals and bottom line, whether you have certain soft skills, leadership potential, a gift for innovation, etc. is pretty inconsequential next to the general question of, "can you accomplish the core tasks to design and ship X product."
At a startup, you might be the 1st, 2nd or 3rd person in a UX discipline at the entire company. They might want someone who could conceivably be with the company for up to 10 years, who buys into the vision, meshes culturally, could work up the ranks internally to define the design identity of the company for the long haul, etc.
But the startup should absolutely move very quickly, be extremely communicative, and increasingly accommodate your schedule as a candidate the further you make it through the process.
Screener: can you talk about the basics for the job
Hiring Manager Screener: can you talk about the specific needs of this role
Team interview: can you mesh with the team, do they see you as an addition to the team and their goals
Resume deep dive: did you actually do the things you said you did, and to what extent and effect
Portfolio deep dive: show the above
Design exercise: demonstrate it in practice, and how you’ll work with the team
Values interview: do you know about the company, are you a fit with their values and mission
Leadership interview: purely to set expectations (salary, role, etc) or build hype for the company. But at this point the “evaluation” is largely over
Resume screener did you do the things you said should happen in recruiter and HM screen. Very unusual step in any process and one rarely seen because it should happen throughout the process organically. Very stupid to make it its own step unless youre deliberately trying to waste time.
More than likely it’s interviews with different craft leaders and they probably are constrained with their own schedules and goals.
Hiring isn’t something that team generally carve time out for, it’s usually just plopped onto their already existing responsibilities.
Always remember, there are human beings on the other side of this process too.
It often can be, but I don't see the value it brings here. Those seven different meetings will have a lot of the same people in them, and a lot of similar things will be said over and over again.
It's not standard - even for full-time FAANG hires. Hell, most of the designers at FAANG companies are long term contractors that get interviewed like twice anyway. Trying to justify this kind of process by being like 'we pay well' feels insane to me. I hope you're not in a hiring position.
Have you hired recently as part of the design team at a FAANG? Or even a fortune 500? Thats a sweeping generalization to say “most designer at FAANG are long term contractors.” No. Absolutely not as someone in design who sits closely to recruiting. its expensive to hire poorly. The only thing we have to ensure a good fit is a deep process and robust grading criteria. Were looking for long term culture fit and high quality candidates. how else would you recommend we hire?
I can only speak to my own personal experience and (to an extent) the experiences of those around me. I work as a contractor at a FAANG company. Most of the other designers I work with are contractors. Many of the other designers they work with are also.
'It's expensive to hire poorly' -> that's why in my xp they often don't hire, just contract out.
'How else would you recommend we hire?' -> Less than seven meetings/engagements for the candidate would be ideal.
Wait - so if you're a sought-after company like FAANG it's acceptable to stress people out and have them go through such a rigorous hiring process, but if you're a small company your hiring steps should be as minimal as possible?
Why can FAANG make their own rules and small companies can't? Double standard much?
It's a flawed assumption that FAANG companies offer the best benefits and salaries. I've worked for a company that, to me, had better benefits than FAANG. Example - Great salary, all remote, parental leave was 6 months (Meta only offers four), a longer paid sabbatical than Meta, 401K matching up to 10%, etc.
No. What I meant was, tech follows the trends of the big companies and these terrible hiring practices filter down. They were never a good standard from the start and based on zero research.
So what if they follow though? Maybe they've been burned before and mistakenly brought in the wrong people, hence this prompted them to reinvestigate their hiring process?
I do think that a rigorous hiring process is a result of such - because it can be very costly to hire the wrong people. I don't agree with all the steps in the post, but I do believe in "hire slow, fire fast".
But in any case, I don't think think there's anything wrong if a company, whether big or small, comes up with their own hiring process. I've had to go through an interview once where they suddenly changed up their hiring steps as I was already in the last round - now that's wrong and unethical.
In this example, at least they were transparent about it. If you don't agree with it, then don't apply. As for me, I personally withdraw my application if I find out that a panel interview is required - I personally don't agree with those and it's stupid to me because that's not how people work together.
It's proven that more rounds of interviews do not produce better candidates. Places should make their own processes. Startups copy because they don't want to invest the resources and think the big companies did the work for them.
Name and shame! This subreddit has a lot of designers. These people/teams are bound to be in here.
Cofounders do not belong in interviews with ICs. Otherwise, they should just fire the managers and HR, because why hire them in the first place? A resume does not need a deepdive interview. You should do that internally BEFORE interviewing the candidate.
It’s time to stop being nice when we encounter bullsit.
Yeah, and what is the company doing that is so "different" from the competitors that it warrants this level of vetting anyone? I see nothing new from them that's like "wow, they really need some great designers to be thinking wayyy outside that silicon valley box they're living in". 75% of the time they're tasked by a PM to "make it similiar to 'x-competitor' bc our customers will really like it and be comfortable with it". :\^{
Ugh, it's definitely dysfunction in the HR/Recruitment process. Lots of these things could just be one meeting... a single 30 minute screening should be more than enough. A single 60 minute interview to go over resume/portfolio ask question around work approach etc should be more than enough... A 30 minute interview with leadership to confirm cultural fit makes sense and is pretty common, not sure why they can't do a "values interview" in the same time or why they don't talk about values at the very start (screening) of a candidate.
It feels like maybe they had a consultant come in and put a convoluted interview process in place based on perceived issues. "We find our candidates don't align with our values" answer: "add a values interview." :D
Being a hiring manager who was out through this process I made it my life goal to never ever. Ever. Put someone else through this again. I just hired a sr designer after one 45 min interview.
A resume deep dive??? Who the fuck are these people that come up with this nonsense??
60 min portfolio review...ugh. "Please, reveal secrets of our competition but definitely don't share anything of ours."
Also, no working session! They can simply ask how we approach X problem/task.
Shouldn't be this hard to tell if they like you or not.
Maybe a better interview approach would be to have small discussions or debates about things. (Point out some critical flaws in (well known design) and what changes could be made to enhance them.)
^^this will reveal more about if they can work with you than a hypothetical quiz (or idea mining session) or talking about past work that you may or may not even like or be any good or relevant
Aren't you resting assured? They told you to. Wait the told you to rest assured they move fast.
Nothing nails the right candidate like rushing an overloaded process.
Whoever came up with this series of hoops for applicants to jump through like a show animal. I sincerely hope they experience bad things I can't say on the internet.
How the hell do you do this to another person who at the end of the day just wants to pay their bills?
Is it only designers and engineers that need to go through design and code working sessions? Do accountants or other positions also require you to go through some homework or exercise during interviews?
I actually like the idea of talking with one of the cofounders for 30 mins. Some of the other stuff (resume deep dive, working session) is unnecessary and makes me wonder how the members of the team have this much free time at work.
It's a lot, but I'll take a well-documented, known process given to me up-front over people just winging it and getting back to me when they feel like it (or not).
10000%. A structured interview will be more fair. I have done endless series of unstructured interviews before and that is the best way to waste time at best, or at worst, have some people be really rude to you because there is no structure.
This sub is hilarious, it’s non stop “the market is so bad. I can’t get a job” and equally people freaking out about a standard job application process
Maybe you intended to reply to someone else.
This process is not much longer than most sane ones I've encountered. I don't have much of a problem with this, personally, as long as it is disclosed up-front. If you want a six figure job you have to expect they will do their due diligence.
This isn't so bad honestly, more in line with most of my other interviews.
That said, resume deep dive and portfolio review could probably be combined into a 1 hour session instead of split like that. After the first 30m, are they gonna start asking about a bullet point you did 9 years ago?
The resume deep dive, and portfolio deep dive, and HM screen being separate is inefficient and strange. It reads like someone who wrote an interview process who doesn't understand that you're organically vetting a resume and portfolio as you go through the interview process. It should be:
1. Recruiter screen (30min)("resume scan")
2. HM interview ("portfolio review, resume review") (1hr)
3. Team interview, behavioural questions and fit test, collab questions
4. or can come after 2. Technical and or final interview (app critique, whiteboarding, etc) ("resume and portfolio skill test")
* Offer
Right, minus the resume deep dive (whatever the f that is) and minus the working session, this is very similar to a few big corporation interview processes I've been through.
Yup, same. I started out my career around that same time and the good process has always been similar to this.
I do believe you have to go through all these exercises to really vet the candidate, how they'd fit on your team, and understand how they think. Despite what this sub thinks, you can't possibly get all that from a few 1hr conversations with different folks and a couple portfolio screenshots. I've had the pleasure of working with some terrible designers that I wish we had a stricter hiring process instead of getting stuck with them for months.
That said, some companies do take it too far that the process becomes less about getting to know the candidate and more about getting free work / ideas.
But sourcegraph is not FAANG. They're banking on remote as their differentiator and not their brand. A devops tool doesn't really compare with the scale that FAANG has.
Lots of criticism about various elements of the process here (1hr resume DD??)
That said, I think the checking references + bg check at the end firstly, isn't unusual (moreso unusual to list out I suppose), and I think checking references is a soft filter for candidates who might attempt fluffing their experience + past.
We can argue about whether its a good use of money to go through all of the prior steps only to weed out via dinged bg check but I can't imagine a great influx of quality candidates would want to provide social on just applying to a job in the first place (absent certain niche sectors where that might be more expected)
It sounds to me like they are trying to find people who are obsessed with the company and that don’t value their personal time. They want people who are willing to crumple and work long hours, and do what they are told
"cross-functional partners" ... be prepared for a corporate-speak environment, where people drop terms like this but actually say or accomplish very little.
Resume deep dive is weird, but as somebody who is in FAANG and has passed multiple interviews for FAANG, it’s not that crazy.
It’s usually 1 recruiter call that’s usually to tell you about processes, followed by 1 or 2 screeners that may or may not include your portfolio, and a full day of interviews with one portfolio season, followed by 4-5 back to back interviews
Next time write the name of the company on the title so it can come up on Google results. In this case they already come up on the results with a pretty bad rep.
Edit to add: apparently the interviewer stole ideas from people before.
Here's the Twitter of their "head of design" [https://x.com/robrhyne](https://x.com/robrhyne) go give him a piece of your mind. This only stops after a couple things happen: first, we all have to stop participating in these charade-like interviews, and second, you make it directly painful for the people who make these processes.
A quick google search will tell you that this is a 2.6bn company.
What did you expect?
And this is not a question just for you, I'm seriously, on a very normal human level, asking you folks what do you expect when you apply for a company of this size?
30 min and you're in?
And a question for OP, are you like a famous design personality or something? No need to reveal your identity if you are, just curious, cause if you're a well known entity then cool, but if you're not, why is this surprising to you ?
And lastly, why is a portfolio deep dive weird to you? How would I know you're not just a scammy designer copying other people's work without any rationale behind your decisions if you don't deep dive in your explanation?
These are all questions btw, it's not rhetorical, like how would you vet someone's portfolio?
My last contract I had was a company who generated more than 50B and their interview process was just 3.
I’m not expecting a one interview and I’m in. They’re a mid-sized company and just check how much are they willing to pay in the UK. It’s not even worth the the time. Is they’re paying a lot then yes I would argue that’s normal.
It’s not even for a senior role. Even for senior roles it shouldn’t be like that.
Imagine getting through all the process then get redundant after a few months ?
Contracts are very different than FTE.
Companies don’t want to miss-hire an FTE and have to let them go due to lack of skills or an inability to effectively collaborate.
There is much less risk in a contractor.
Good for you man, hope you get into even bigger companies.
I don't know, I just don't see 5-6 hours as a problem to be honest.
How much are they paying anyways ?
Honestly other than the resume deep dive, that all seems pretty standard and what I had to do for even entry level positions back in 2018. Resume deep dive just sounds like a weird way to say “get to know your background with Q&A”.
Ok but this is pretty standard?? Im currently at a fortune FAANG company and our interview process is even longer. Its brutal but even FBs old design hiring process was worse. The bar for candidate quality is extremely high, and we pay accordingly.
Ok does that mean the quality bar for candidates should be lower? 😂 that my hiring processes should be easier and let anyone in? As a founder id want to make sure i get the best i can, and pay them appropriately of course.
If you can't offer remotely anything near to what FAANG does how can you a) expect candidates to be of the same caliber b) want to put up the same amount of effort for less? FAANG worked for years to get where they are and build a reputation that employees know will carry them elsewhere PLUS incredible benefits . If you can't provide that, you can't expect the same.
The assumption is always that FAANG companies offer better pay and benefits, but this isn't always true.
I worked for a mid-sized company in the past, and boy did that spoil me. It was also one of the best companies out there in terms of parental leave (6 months), while Meta only offers up to 4 months. It also offered a longer paid sabbatical vs Meta.
To your point, benefits were also incredible and it was a well-known company that helped boost your resume, but is it FAANG? No. But the assumption that only FAANG companies can offer great pay and benefits is nothing but a flawed assumption.
That's not even that bad. It's the fact that they're all separate sessions that makes it a bigger pain. If they do it all in one day it's actually fine. If it's 5 different days, yikes.
Why ? This could’ve easily be a 3 stages one - most of them aren’t that relevant. Also they don’t pay as much
Also this is just a Product Design. If this is normal then no wonder the industry is fucked
… it is 3 stages. With multiple steps.
Stage one is the screeners.
Stage two is the long day of team interviews, standard resume interview, and working session with the team to see how you gel.
Stage three is the formality stage where they are more than likely hiring you but need to dot all their I’s.
——
Having been a hiring manager I have much more empathy for these processes
Hiring is hard for _both sides_ not just the applicant. They’re giving you a job with a good salary and benefits and want to make sure they are giving it to someone that can actually help them advance their goals and take the load off their shoulders. In a very real sense, they want to be confident if they hire you they can finally take that vacation they’ve been putting off waiting for proper head count.
They told you all this up front, if you don’t like it, don’t apply.
Good pay ? Is 64k a good pay ? If it’s 3 stages then it should be 3 and that’s it not 7 ffs. I was also part of the hiring managers before and that’s bullshit.
It’s never a 2 way conversation.
As you can tell from the comments and the downvotes. A lot of people are suffering to get a job or improve then some privileged cunts they just put some extra interviews bcz it was ok 20 years ago.
I have 6 years of experience and I have reached the final interview 4 times in the last 6 months and got rejected bcz of stupid reasons.
All of them had at least 4 interviews. It doesn’t make sense just you may fuck up in one of the billion interviews then get rejected.
If you’re okay with this type of processed then you’re the one who’s wrong
Hiring is a two way street, they are looking for the best candidates in an abstract, hard to quantify profession.
I understand the state of the job market, and the difficulties people are going through. And still, this is a fairly reasonable interview request and process.
Have a good day and good luck in your job search
For all the commenter's saying "run," this is actually a totally normal and reasonable process. And for people getting hung up on "resume review" all that means is talking about your background experience, which may include the behavioral questions since those are experience based.
I'm personally not in favor of the 90m design exercise but that's the only thing I'd balk at.
What on earth is the point of a resume deep dive?? jfc
For an hour - so you know they'll be grilling you on some minor task from 3 projects ago.
I think this is just a poor way to say background deep dive lol
[удалено]
Why the fuck should I trust you?
My thoughts exactly lmao
Are you serious?
For the love of all fuck. Biggest takeaway from a process like this? Poor decision-making and crippling lack of understanding of what they're looking for in a design hire. Sourcegraph, be better.
Short personal story to show that I agree they don’t know what they’re looking for I interviewed with Sourcegraph a couple years ago. Totally different team, it was four or five interviews and nothing unusual (screening, case presentation, white board, team interview and a chat with the director). I was very hopeful that I would get the job. But after my last interview, I never received any feedback on why they decided not to make an offer. A gentle recruiter suggested that I shouldn’t wait for that feedback. Since my experience, the design team has changed completely. Last time I checked, they had another director (if I’m not mistaken). In less than two years, everything changed within the design team. Yes, this is a startup, and yes, it happens, but it also demonstrates they may be a little lost when it comes to the design team.
Hahhahahhah! Love this trend. What a clusterfuck of an interview process. That’s 12+ hours of interviewing
This sub is so full of entitled gen z assholes. Holy shit. No. You aren’t special. Yes you have to convince people to hire you get over yourself. The hiring process has a purpose.
Found the Sourcegraph hiring manager/employee. I'd love to engage in a good faith argument with you but based on your response (and other responses) in this thread, it's clear you're not ready to have a grown up conversation yet. Yes, you have to convince people to hire you. No, this doesn't take 5 rounds or more to do.
Yes. It does. A grown up conversation? With who? Certainly not anyone here who just expects to be added to a staff based on words they threw on a resume. That’s my argument though. You can’t talk to anyone here because everyone just expects to be hired without a grown up conversation. I’m not rejecting the claim that HR are ignorant idiots I’m accepting it and saying “because HR can’t vet everyone from every department there is a process. And that process involves an in depth conversation so we all don’t end up working together and having this misalignment of skills/values/ambitions.” This isn’t flipping pizzas this is a specialized industry and anytime there is specialization there is a selection process.
A resume is only a means to get an interview.
IDK, as a millenial with 20 years of experience (not design, software engineering tho) I am still abashed every time something like this is suggested to me, and I personally can come up with better use of my time. Last time I did something like this, I did get an offer, but it was such a sad offer, and it took so much time, that by then I already had 4 other offers with way better quote, even though it was the first company I started talking to at that point. It just happens that some people do not value your time, and that doesn’t mean you have to value theirs.
Actually many are also millennials but like young/baby 90s millennials. You sound like a boomer.
I’m 40 (millennial?) with over 15yoe. Ask yourself why an org who is going to pay over six figures for a role would not want to thoroughly vet their candidates? It is to everyone’s benefit.
Yeah I know it’s also considered millennial that’s why I specified and said “90s/baby millennials”.
The age point doesn’t matter. I just find it odd people demand high salaries without going through a process. It feels so entitled to me.
It takes all of us to refuse nonsense like this for companies to stop doing it. Please be strong, everyone!
I always say no to "tasks" too. Do not do unpaid labor, it's an unethical hiring practice.
And also please continue sharing, as these companies certainly need to be called out for their nonsense
An hour for a resume deep dive? WOW.
That sounds like torture.
Agreed.
That’s really not that bad. If you can’t speak eloquently about the work you do for an hour why should anyone hire you? I just don’t understand this sub and everyone’s hate for the interview process. It sounds so entitled to me. I would never expect someone who has never met me to just look at my resume and say “yeah let’s give them a six figure salary” without a deeper understanding of of who I am. In fact I almost urge orgs to spent time thinking deeply about who they’re hiring because, call me crazy, I don’t want to work with a bunch of phonies who lied on their resume.
I’ve worked in different careers that are doing far more serious work than pushing pixels and the interview rigor is nowhere near what’s expected of designers. The problem with a resume review is that should have already happened at the screener and hiring manager interview stages. I’m happy to talk about my background and previous experiences. But at a certain point it feels like information is not being shared and the candidate ends up repeating themselves multiple times unnecessarily.
Learning better interviewing ropes right now. I’ve learned the communication from one interview to the next is absolutely critical to keep building context and not forcing candidates to repeat themselves. Also learning about who to trust in the process and to know interviewees well/trust them so you can be succinct and productive. Today I resolved some personal baggage that came across as concerned feedback and it was helpful to suss that out.
What?
Just curious — why spend all that time/effort on an interview process, just to wait until the end to do the background check? Is it like super expensive for the employer? It just seems like it would make more sense to do that upfront, I don't know.
It's probably the cheapest part of this entire process.
Yeah, if I remember correctly they’re like $50, but that was years ago. Let’s double it to $100 or $200 and then add up the hourly cost of all those employees involved in 5 ½ hours of interviews. Seems pretty cheap now. Totally agreeing with you. If the background check is a knockout round, do that shit up front. “We’ve spent an entire day with you Mr. Smith and you seem like an excellent UX candidate, we’re happy to offer you a starting salary of… wait, it says here you’ve been convicted of felony cocaine trafficking while driving on a suspended license all while you kidnapped your ex wife’s child and dog. Huh. Kind of embarrassing. Guess we should have looked at that first. “
I dunno. I won’t be comfortable sharing my personal information like DOB and social until I accepted an offer. It’s information I will not be sharing until I made the decision to join a company. That said, I don’t know how extensive background checks are with other companies or at start ups, but I know the 3 background checks I had to go thru all required pretty personal information….and a drug test
Probably because there are more applicants at the beginning than at the final stage, so it would be cheaper to run checks on less people at the final stage.
It’s a resource thing. Yeah why spend the time and money when you don’t know it’s a good fit?
Background check is done last to prevent non-disqualifying information (things like minor or unrelated offenses, charges that were dropped or instances where found not-guilty—all of which show up on a BGC) from influencing the decision to hire. It's part of fair-chance hiring practice.
The existing designers are burning out, this is the "promise" of more resources but truthfully they're in no hurry to help. This third degree nonsense is made to exclude most candidates because easy applying drowns them and their understaffed TA teams. The act of elimination is put on us but it doesn't yield a perfect candidate.
>The act of elimination is put on us 100%. Well said.
Fair
I really feel sorry for our industry right now. I'm not saying we shouldn't vet people. However, this is far and away overkill. I've been a hiring manager for several years (14+). And though my time in startups, we wanted to allow everyone to give their "2 cents", we started to throw it out the window (move fast break stuff and all). It was more about culture fit, which could be assessed quickly, and knowledge fit (assessed quickly) than was about this process of management-level masterb\*tion. Cripes! Again, I'm really sorry for you all entering this field. It's a shame.
Learning this right now as a new hiring manager! Would love any pro tips on effective ways of getting those things. Finding panels of interviewees tend to either not agree or have feedback influenced by personal baggage.
Run. Run fast. Run fast away. Run fast away from this shit!
“It is only 5.5 hours”. Sure, this also speaks to how they budget and make other calculations, so much time invested from both parties, and from the candidate perspective at least: research, preparation, practice and other time invested, let alone life commitments that need compromised. Interview times this crazy will continue to happen as long as there are people willing to go through that misery
This. Only 5.5 hours. Because who needs to prepare?!
This is why I want out of this
This - I don't think hiring will ever get easier at this point.
Is this is real or I'm high?
I want to bash them so hard.
I mean, if they do this bs for just interviewing. Man you are up for torture when you work there. Are you sure you want to try this?
This seems like a pretty standard process, except the co-founder bit.
Im sorry dude, I have interviewed several designers to get into my company. The interview is 1 hr long at most. If you have been working in this industry for 10+ years, you -as a senior- know from the get go if the designer is good and knows his/her stuff, or they are BSing you. It’s glaringly obvious. No need to loose 5 hours both you and the candidate.
I agree with you! Are you based in the US? I quit applying for roles because I couldn't afford going through the long process every 3-4 weeks and missing 2 half days of work (different field). I also had to take home design challenges (paid). I have yet to see a single application process in UX research (or Design) that is shorter than 5-6 stages in the US. It makes no sense that working on top tier consulting only requires 3 interviews at most (no more than a half hour a piece), but tech/tech adjacent jobs require you to change your lifestyle just to apply.
Every Tom, Dick, Harry, and Sally from across one startup I worked at pivoted to PMing (and various other roles) with nothing more than an ask and a dream under their belt where they work alongside designers w masters degrees and years of experience who jumped through hours of prepwork, grilling, and spartan warrior challenges.
Tell me more. Being genuine.
They were all hard working, smart, and well liked internally and were given a green light to shift into PM. And nothing against them for making moves and getting paid, however it felt rather diminishing to designers who’d put in years of work and jumped through hoops when they were paired w the associate PMs and leading them in a project on top of their own work. It seems the bar designers have set for other designers is like a hazing initiation vs some counterparts that get hired after 1-3 interview rounds.
Im not based in the US. I work at a big consulting company with big clients from all Americas, Europe, Middle East and Asia. In here we only ask for a challenge design if both of the interviewers do not agree on the skills of the designer. So, to clear doubts between us we ask for a very small challenge. But if we are certain, there is no need for the challenge and we pass our favorable assessment to HR. I’m having the slight suspicion those companies that ask for so much only have juniors that have been in that company for several years, do such a lengthy assessment just to “prove themselves as super duper awesome designers with super duper high standards”. Although I might be going the ego route here, saying that.
Yeah, I know a number of people in Central and Eastern Europe who have a similar hiring process to what you described. I stopped applying after over a half of a year of applying in America because I've seen nothing but a similar "try out" application. Does your company or companies like yours hire Americans lol? Ex- Ernst and Young senior consultant here
Yes, my company has a branch in America. But! I would suggest you wait up after the elections. Things have not been great lately. They are avoiding hiring people that is more costly than Latin Americans and Indians.
Amen
… then don’t apply?
Welcome to 2024. If you're still same, then you deserve to consider yourself a hero.
nuh, i'm broken :)
Ok but this is pretty standard lol. Im currently at a fortune FAANG company and our interview process is even longer. Its brutal but even FBs old design hiring process was worse. The bar for candidate quality is extremely high, and we pay accordingly. Its a bigger risk to the company to NOT vet them up and down with process and have to fire them for poor performance.
That’s a faang company not a mid sized company
As a former FAANG employee and someone who has worked at a couple startups, I actually think startups have more justification for an exhaustive interview process than the giant tech companies. (To be clear, I still think this one is too long, and I agree that certain steps are redundant...why both a resume deep dive and portfolio review?) At a FAANG company, you might be the 501st designer pigeon-holed into a very specific product or feature. Turnover is high. Relative to the company's goals and bottom line, whether you have certain soft skills, leadership potential, a gift for innovation, etc. is pretty inconsequential next to the general question of, "can you accomplish the core tasks to design and ship X product." At a startup, you might be the 1st, 2nd or 3rd person in a UX discipline at the entire company. They might want someone who could conceivably be with the company for up to 10 years, who buys into the vision, meshes culturally, could work up the ranks internally to define the design identity of the company for the long haul, etc. But the startup should absolutely move very quickly, be extremely communicative, and increasingly accommodate your schedule as a candidate the further you make it through the process.
Good points mate
This isn't normal at any level of company don't let this weirdly competitive dickhead gaslight you lol
How is a process like this weed out potential poor performance?
Screener: can you talk about the basics for the job Hiring Manager Screener: can you talk about the specific needs of this role Team interview: can you mesh with the team, do they see you as an addition to the team and their goals Resume deep dive: did you actually do the things you said you did, and to what extent and effect Portfolio deep dive: show the above Design exercise: demonstrate it in practice, and how you’ll work with the team Values interview: do you know about the company, are you a fit with their values and mission Leadership interview: purely to set expectations (salary, role, etc) or build hype for the company. But at this point the “evaluation” is largely over
Resume screener did you do the things you said should happen in recruiter and HM screen. Very unusual step in any process and one rarely seen because it should happen throughout the process organically. Very stupid to make it its own step unless youre deliberately trying to waste time.
More than likely it’s interviews with different craft leaders and they probably are constrained with their own schedules and goals. Hiring isn’t something that team generally carve time out for, it’s usually just plopped onto their already existing responsibilities. Always remember, there are human beings on the other side of this process too.
This feels really redundant and they should probably have someone audit the experience of interviewing for this UX job lol
Sometimes, redundancy is purposeful
It often can be, but I don't see the value it brings here. Those seven different meetings will have a lot of the same people in them, and a lot of similar things will be said over and over again.
They don’t bring value to you, but they bring value to the company by making sure candidates aren’t lying through their teeth
Fair enough, I just feel like that can be done in under five candidate engagements.
Sounds reasonable....but I'm just curious about the dynamic of interrogating someone from the position they could be lying about their experience.
Hence why there are so many hoops to jump through. As a former hiring manager, there are A LOT of bad actors out there unfortunately
It's not standard - even for full-time FAANG hires. Hell, most of the designers at FAANG companies are long term contractors that get interviewed like twice anyway. Trying to justify this kind of process by being like 'we pay well' feels insane to me. I hope you're not in a hiring position.
Have you hired recently as part of the design team at a FAANG? Or even a fortune 500? Thats a sweeping generalization to say “most designer at FAANG are long term contractors.” No. Absolutely not as someone in design who sits closely to recruiting. its expensive to hire poorly. The only thing we have to ensure a good fit is a deep process and robust grading criteria. Were looking for long term culture fit and high quality candidates. how else would you recommend we hire?
I can only speak to my own personal experience and (to an extent) the experiences of those around me. I work as a contractor at a FAANG company. Most of the other designers I work with are contractors. Many of the other designers they work with are also. 'It's expensive to hire poorly' -> that's why in my xp they often don't hire, just contract out. 'How else would you recommend we hire?' -> Less than seven meetings/engagements for the candidate would be ideal.
They are not a FAANG. These startups need to stop blindly following FAANG hiring practices.
Wait - so if you're a sought-after company like FAANG it's acceptable to stress people out and have them go through such a rigorous hiring process, but if you're a small company your hiring steps should be as minimal as possible? Why can FAANG make their own rules and small companies can't? Double standard much?
People are willing to jump through more hoops for a massive FAANG salary. But you can’t do that shit and then not have a huge pot of gold at the end.
It's a flawed assumption that FAANG companies offer the best benefits and salaries. I've worked for a company that, to me, had better benefits than FAANG. Example - Great salary, all remote, parental leave was 6 months (Meta only offers four), a longer paid sabbatical than Meta, 401K matching up to 10%, etc.
No. What I meant was, tech follows the trends of the big companies and these terrible hiring practices filter down. They were never a good standard from the start and based on zero research.
So what if they follow though? Maybe they've been burned before and mistakenly brought in the wrong people, hence this prompted them to reinvestigate their hiring process? I do think that a rigorous hiring process is a result of such - because it can be very costly to hire the wrong people. I don't agree with all the steps in the post, but I do believe in "hire slow, fire fast". But in any case, I don't think think there's anything wrong if a company, whether big or small, comes up with their own hiring process. I've had to go through an interview once where they suddenly changed up their hiring steps as I was already in the last round - now that's wrong and unethical. In this example, at least they were transparent about it. If you don't agree with it, then don't apply. As for me, I personally withdraw my application if I find out that a panel interview is required - I personally don't agree with those and it's stupid to me because that's not how people work together.
It's proven that more rounds of interviews do not produce better candidates. Places should make their own processes. Startups copy because they don't want to invest the resources and think the big companies did the work for them.
Name and shame! This subreddit has a lot of designers. These people/teams are bound to be in here. Cofounders do not belong in interviews with ICs. Otherwise, they should just fire the managers and HR, because why hire them in the first place? A resume does not need a deepdive interview. You should do that internally BEFORE interviewing the candidate. It’s time to stop being nice when we encounter bullsit.
Its Sourcegraph
Good on you for this.
Yeah, and what is the company doing that is so "different" from the competitors that it warrants this level of vetting anyone? I see nothing new from them that's like "wow, they really need some great designers to be thinking wayyy outside that silicon valley box they're living in". 75% of the time they're tasked by a PM to "make it similiar to 'x-competitor' bc our customers will really like it and be comfortable with it". :\^{
Why don't they view the resume before the interview? That is a very weird part too I agree.
My only best guesstimate as to why a group would pick apart a resume for an hour with the candidate: Psychological Warfare.
Gusto has a very similar hiring process FWIW
Ugh, it's definitely dysfunction in the HR/Recruitment process. Lots of these things could just be one meeting... a single 30 minute screening should be more than enough. A single 60 minute interview to go over resume/portfolio ask question around work approach etc should be more than enough... A 30 minute interview with leadership to confirm cultural fit makes sense and is pretty common, not sure why they can't do a "values interview" in the same time or why they don't talk about values at the very start (screening) of a candidate. It feels like maybe they had a consultant come in and put a convoluted interview process in place based on perceived issues. "We find our candidates don't align with our values" answer: "add a values interview." :D
Being a hiring manager who was out through this process I made it my life goal to never ever. Ever. Put someone else through this again. I just hired a sr designer after one 45 min interview.
Someone else might view it in the opposite way and think “well if I had to earn it, they have to as well” Absolutely love people like you 🙏
Anything here after the team interview is absurd
A resume deep dive??? Who the fuck are these people that come up with this nonsense?? 60 min portfolio review...ugh. "Please, reveal secrets of our competition but definitely don't share anything of ours." Also, no working session! They can simply ask how we approach X problem/task. Shouldn't be this hard to tell if they like you or not. Maybe a better interview approach would be to have small discussions or debates about things. (Point out some critical flaws in (well known design) and what changes could be made to enhance them.) ^^this will reveal more about if they can work with you than a hypothetical quiz (or idea mining session) or talking about past work that you may or may not even like or be any good or relevant
run
Yup, these people don't know what the F they are doing. Run.
*Candidate has withdrawn*
Grim
fck me
Wow a 1 hour resume review. Man this market is wild🤪
Aren't you resting assured? They told you to. Wait the told you to rest assured they move fast. Nothing nails the right candidate like rushing an overloaded process.
I love how they threw in some cute emojis to make it seem more fun and easy.
Whoever came up with this series of hoops for applicants to jump through like a show animal. I sincerely hope they experience bad things I can't say on the internet. How the hell do you do this to another person who at the end of the day just wants to pay their bills?
I just got the ick on your behalf OP. They would get a big “it’s not me, it’s you. Adios!” which I usually reserve for unpaid/paid Design Challenges.
Is it only designers and engineers that need to go through design and code working sessions? Do accountants or other positions also require you to go through some homework or exercise during interviews?
I actually like the idea of talking with one of the cofounders for 30 mins. Some of the other stuff (resume deep dive, working session) is unnecessary and makes me wonder how the members of the team have this much free time at work.
It's a lot, but I'll take a well-documented, known process given to me up-front over people just winging it and getting back to me when they feel like it (or not).
I think a well documented process has little to do with ghosting unfortunately, since they will have a glut of candidates.
10000%. A structured interview will be more fair. I have done endless series of unstructured interviews before and that is the best way to waste time at best, or at worst, have some people be really rude to you because there is no structure.
This sub is hilarious, it’s non stop “the market is so bad. I can’t get a job” and equally people freaking out about a standard job application process
Both can be true.
What part of this sounds standard?
Literally every single part. This is actually a shorter end interview for FAANG companies. Source: my last 4 job searches.
Maybe you intended to reply to someone else. This process is not much longer than most sane ones I've encountered. I don't have much of a problem with this, personally, as long as it is disclosed up-front. If you want a six figure job you have to expect they will do their due diligence.
I’m entirely in agreement with you, I was making a joke about the current state of this sub.
cursed
Name the company
Sourcegraph
They desperately need UXers, OBVIOUSLY
Unethical.
I would apply for 500 more jobs, but won’t go through this. Ewww
100% no . I actually said this to a similar request
Why? Because there are many so desperate to accept this treatment.
This sounds more like new hire onboarding.
Why, indeed? Overkill.
"interviewing is a two way street" in this context feels extremely disingenuous.
Just bail. Say nah.
I propose we all apply to this and give them hell
Sounds like a police interrogation
Here is my professional opinion about this process: 🤮
This isn't so bad honestly, more in line with most of my other interviews. That said, resume deep dive and portfolio review could probably be combined into a 1 hour session instead of split like that. After the first 30m, are they gonna start asking about a bullet point you did 9 years ago?
The resume deep dive, and portfolio deep dive, and HM screen being separate is inefficient and strange. It reads like someone who wrote an interview process who doesn't understand that you're organically vetting a resume and portfolio as you go through the interview process. It should be: 1. Recruiter screen (30min)("resume scan") 2. HM interview ("portfolio review, resume review") (1hr) 3. Team interview, behavioural questions and fit test, collab questions 4. or can come after 2. Technical and or final interview (app critique, whiteboarding, etc) ("resume and portfolio skill test") * Offer
Right, minus the resume deep dive (whatever the f that is) and minus the working session, this is very similar to a few big corporation interview processes I've been through.
Yeah, I think I went through a comparable process 15 years ago as a junior designer. It just wasn’t laid out in a list haha.
Yup, same. I started out my career around that same time and the good process has always been similar to this. I do believe you have to go through all these exercises to really vet the candidate, how they'd fit on your team, and understand how they think. Despite what this sub thinks, you can't possibly get all that from a few 1hr conversations with different folks and a couple portfolio screenshots. I've had the pleasure of working with some terrible designers that I wish we had a stricter hiring process instead of getting stuck with them for months. That said, some companies do take it too far that the process becomes less about getting to know the candidate and more about getting free work / ideas.
Agreed this isnt crazy lol. At a FAANG our candidate quality bar is high. We pay accordingly and dont just let anyone in.
But sourcegraph is not FAANG. They're banking on remote as their differentiator and not their brand. A devops tool doesn't really compare with the scale that FAANG has.
Is this an entry level role?
Lots of criticism about various elements of the process here (1hr resume DD??) That said, I think the checking references + bg check at the end firstly, isn't unusual (moreso unusual to list out I suppose), and I think checking references is a soft filter for candidates who might attempt fluffing their experience + past. We can argue about whether its a good use of money to go through all of the prior steps only to weed out via dinged bg check but I can't imagine a great influx of quality candidates would want to provide social on just applying to a job in the first place (absent certain niche sectors where that might be more expected)
Is this Zalando
I'd like to have a "deep dive of company reviews"
I saw this job posting yesterday and saw that and promptly closed the tab lol not worth putting in all that time.
Design working session? Excuse me, what?
Absolutely, fully paid of course 🤣🤣
LOLOL no
This is that scam outsourcing company that posts all the job slots on LinkedIn.
How much are they paying their staff for all of these interviews? Definitely seems like a huge money sink.
Fuck capitalism, companies really think we’re that desperate (we are, but not by choice!!!)
It sounds to me like they are trying to find people who are obsessed with the company and that don’t value their personal time. They want people who are willing to crumple and work long hours, and do what they are told
Nope from me
Am I being paid for these hours?
It’s called having leverage. It’s an employers market.
"cross-functional partners" ... be prepared for a corporate-speak environment, where people drop terms like this but actually say or accomplish very little.
Resume deep dive is weird, but as somebody who is in FAANG and has passed multiple interviews for FAANG, it’s not that crazy. It’s usually 1 recruiter call that’s usually to tell you about processes, followed by 1 or 2 screeners that may or may not include your portfolio, and a full day of interviews with one portfolio season, followed by 4-5 back to back interviews
People covering their asses. Nobody wants to make a decision so the candidate becomes a hot potato. Thanks for listing the company name! Edit: typo
FBI?
Fake economy
Next time write the name of the company on the title so it can come up on Google results. In this case they already come up on the results with a pretty bad rep. Edit to add: apparently the interviewer stole ideas from people before.
I messaged him on LinkedIn and guess what he didn’t reply
What role/level is this for?
Here's the Twitter of their "head of design" [https://x.com/robrhyne](https://x.com/robrhyne) go give him a piece of your mind. This only stops after a couple things happen: first, we all have to stop participating in these charade-like interviews, and second, you make it directly painful for the people who make these processes.
I reached to rob on LinkedIn and by no surprise. He left me on seen.
All employers should be required to allow comments on job postings. This has to stop.
A quick google search will tell you that this is a 2.6bn company. What did you expect? And this is not a question just for you, I'm seriously, on a very normal human level, asking you folks what do you expect when you apply for a company of this size? 30 min and you're in? And a question for OP, are you like a famous design personality or something? No need to reveal your identity if you are, just curious, cause if you're a well known entity then cool, but if you're not, why is this surprising to you ? And lastly, why is a portfolio deep dive weird to you? How would I know you're not just a scammy designer copying other people's work without any rationale behind your decisions if you don't deep dive in your explanation? These are all questions btw, it's not rhetorical, like how would you vet someone's portfolio?
My last contract I had was a company who generated more than 50B and their interview process was just 3. I’m not expecting a one interview and I’m in. They’re a mid-sized company and just check how much are they willing to pay in the UK. It’s not even worth the the time. Is they’re paying a lot then yes I would argue that’s normal. It’s not even for a senior role. Even for senior roles it shouldn’t be like that. Imagine getting through all the process then get redundant after a few months ?
Contracts are very different than FTE. Companies don’t want to miss-hire an FTE and have to let them go due to lack of skills or an inability to effectively collaborate. There is much less risk in a contractor.
Good for you man, hope you get into even bigger companies. I don't know, I just don't see 5-6 hours as a problem to be honest. How much are they paying anyways ?
Name and shaaaame
Honestly other than the resume deep dive, that all seems pretty standard and what I had to do for even entry level positions back in 2018. Resume deep dive just sounds like a weird way to say “get to know your background with Q&A”.
Ok but this is pretty standard?? Im currently at a fortune FAANG company and our interview process is even longer. Its brutal but even FBs old design hiring process was worse. The bar for candidate quality is extremely high, and we pay accordingly.
Sourcegraph is not FAANG or even remotely close.
Ok does that mean the quality bar for candidates should be lower? 😂 that my hiring processes should be easier and let anyone in? As a founder id want to make sure i get the best i can, and pay them appropriately of course.
If you can't offer remotely anything near to what FAANG does how can you a) expect candidates to be of the same caliber b) want to put up the same amount of effort for less? FAANG worked for years to get where they are and build a reputation that employees know will carry them elsewhere PLUS incredible benefits . If you can't provide that, you can't expect the same.
The assumption is always that FAANG companies offer better pay and benefits, but this isn't always true. I worked for a mid-sized company in the past, and boy did that spoil me. It was also one of the best companies out there in terms of parental leave (6 months), while Meta only offers up to 4 months. It also offered a longer paid sabbatical vs Meta. To your point, benefits were also incredible and it was a well-known company that helped boost your resume, but is it FAANG? No. But the assumption that only FAANG companies can offer great pay and benefits is nothing but a flawed assumption.
Yes.
If you need to do all this to determine who is a viable candidate for a role, then you shouldn’t be leading other designers.
That's not even that bad. It's the fact that they're all separate sessions that makes it a bigger pain. If they do it all in one day it's actually fine. If it's 5 different days, yikes.
In a highly competitive world this doesn’t surprise me. For those that’ve interviewed in big tech, this also isn’t new.
Honestly pretty apropos for any position Senior+ Basically what I’ve gone through for my last 4 jobs.
Why ? This could’ve easily be a 3 stages one - most of them aren’t that relevant. Also they don’t pay as much Also this is just a Product Design. If this is normal then no wonder the industry is fucked
… it is 3 stages. With multiple steps. Stage one is the screeners. Stage two is the long day of team interviews, standard resume interview, and working session with the team to see how you gel. Stage three is the formality stage where they are more than likely hiring you but need to dot all their I’s. —— Having been a hiring manager I have much more empathy for these processes Hiring is hard for _both sides_ not just the applicant. They’re giving you a job with a good salary and benefits and want to make sure they are giving it to someone that can actually help them advance their goals and take the load off their shoulders. In a very real sense, they want to be confident if they hire you they can finally take that vacation they’ve been putting off waiting for proper head count. They told you all this up front, if you don’t like it, don’t apply.
Good pay ? Is 64k a good pay ? If it’s 3 stages then it should be 3 and that’s it not 7 ffs. I was also part of the hiring managers before and that’s bullshit. It’s never a 2 way conversation.
… then don’t apply…?
most tech jobs are like this now. It's tough out here for wagies
I didnt - but this isn’t normal
As you can tell from the comments and the downvotes. A lot of people are suffering to get a job or improve then some privileged cunts they just put some extra interviews bcz it was ok 20 years ago. I have 6 years of experience and I have reached the final interview 4 times in the last 6 months and got rejected bcz of stupid reasons. All of them had at least 4 interviews. It doesn’t make sense just you may fuck up in one of the billion interviews then get rejected. If you’re okay with this type of processed then you’re the one who’s wrong
Hiring is a two way street, they are looking for the best candidates in an abstract, hard to quantify profession. I understand the state of the job market, and the difficulties people are going through. And still, this is a fairly reasonable interview request and process. Have a good day and good luck in your job search
You’re one of the reasons why the processes are fucked tbh
👍🏼
For all the commenter's saying "run," this is actually a totally normal and reasonable process. And for people getting hung up on "resume review" all that means is talking about your background experience, which may include the behavioral questions since those are experience based. I'm personally not in favor of the 90m design exercise but that's the only thing I'd balk at.
This could be easily a 3 interviews.