Processes with a ridiculous number of stages

Caporegime
Joined
13 May 2003
Posts
34,509
Location
Warwickshire
I'm in the late stages of two processes at the moment. One will have had 5 distinct stages and the other 6.

I'm beginning to think they're taking the pee and am considering telling them to sling their hooks, as I'm not desperate, being pretty happy in my current job. The only reason I'm doing this is because I'm a corporate whore so might as well prostitute myself to the highest bidder, or what's the point?

Anyway I've known Group CEO processes with fewer stages than this and it's wasting a lot of my time.

Wahhh.
 
How long is each one and what's the role ? I've seen some real horror stories called out on linkedin in the past and usually its a sign of a badly dysfunctional organisation. Seems like a silly amount of effort if you're not serious about a move.
 
A while ago I refused a place with 5 and went for another that did 3. Shortly after, my new employer decided they needed to raise it to 5. Utterly ridiculous. And then we had someone who went through all 5, we still weren't sure, so did a 6th and then hired them. Major mistake, they were awful.

My current employer does 3, which I think is fair enough. First one with someone more junior to weed out anyone who isn't up to scratch, then two with more senior people who can figure out whether they would want to work with you.

I'd happily reject any place that planned to do more than 3 now, it just demonstrates an inability to make quick decisions.
 
Unless it's google or a similar big tech firm (or indeed a smaller firm willing to pay more than those) then I don't see what the incentive is, especially if you're actively looking.

I mean if you're actively looking then you may want to line up a few firms to interview with at once, some may not be suitable or may not select you but you kinda want at least two likely to make you an offer... and if one firm wants some 5 or 6 stage process but there is no good incentive to spend time on that process then that seems self-defeating for them.

It works for google etc.. because so many people want to work there, ditto to say some elite trading firm/hedge fund known to pay megabucks, they'll have no shortage of top candidates. People trying to mimic that but without the brand name or pay are potentially just LARPing at that sort of thing with a less good candidate pool and a selection process that is no longer rigorous but simply lengthy for the sake of it. After all, if their candidate pool could get through google type interviews what are they doing interviewing at a lower-tier firm in the first place?
 
This has become a thing over the last 15 years I noticed. It used to be one interview, two maximum. Now its a marathon interview process.

Thankfully because of social media, companies are being called out for this, they are taking note and its not as bad anymore but its not like it was before which was better.

I can deal with maximum three interview process, more than that then I don't bother. I had to pull out of interview process because they asked me for an 4th interview. By that time I already accepted a role which made me an offer after 2 interviews. It wasnt an high level job either.

Whats worse when you see roles, which have an 5+ interview process and the role has been there for months. Either the company has an crap interview process or they waiting around thinking another candidate better will come along.
 
Last edited:
Where I work all the senior leadership roles have at least 2/3 stages. The middle step was to prepare a case study - you were given information and had 45 minutes to read it and propose a plan from it and then feed it back as to why you made your decision. The final step was meeting the rest of the senior leadership.

It is I guess a way to ensure you are getting the best fit for the role, but it's also ever so painful to go through.
 
Ours has this convoluted application form that takes about 2 week to complete, then 1-3 interviews depending on how high the job. Probably takes about a week or more to prepare for each interview. Doesn't matter if it's a new hire or you've been there 20yrs. Often its a forgone conclusion early on. The face fits or it doesn't.

Worst I heard was 11 stages, but it was a senior role in a one of the biggest tech companies, and had interviews across 3 countries.

Personally I struggle with one stage. No longer have the patience for the HR dance.
 
I had a similar thing recently after being made redundant. It got ridiculous with requests for 6+ interviews, presentations that took me a day to write and prepare for, numerous tests and even writing process documents for review during the interviews. It's ridiculous; I've been in the indistry 35+ years, intrerviewed many people myself, and can usually decide on someone in the first 5 to 10 mins. So their need for so many interview just screams to me that they don't really know who they are looking for.

In the end I binned it off, declined everyone else, and went with a smaller company that just wanted two interviews. I realised it would be hell working for those other companies even if they did eventually make an offer. I always approach interviews as a two way thing; I am interviewing them as much as they are interviewing me. Happy here so far so my gut instincts seem to be right (I hope).

...and UK companies complain they can't attract staff. I wonder why!
 
Last edited:
I had a similar thing recently after being made redundant. It got ridiculous with requests for 6+ interviews, presentations that took me a day to write and prepare for, numerous tests and even writing process documents for review during the interviews. It's ridiculous; I've been in the indistry 35+ years, intrerviewed many people myself, and can usually decide on someone in the first 5 to 10 mins. So their need for so many interview just screams to me that they don't really know who they are looking for.

In the end I binned it off, declined everyone else, and went with a smaller company that just wanted two interviews. I realised it would be hell working for those other companies even if they did eventually make an offer. I always approach interviews as a two way thing; I am interviewing them as much as they are interviewing me. Happy here so far so my gut instincts seem to be right (I hope).

...and UK companies complain they can't attract staff. I wonder why!

I've been in the same place a long time. I'm doing my first external interview in years this week. I already know this place is likely very bureaucratic and won't suit me due to the application process. But I need the practice and get out of my comfort zone.
 
Last edited:
How long is each one and what's the role ? I've seen some real horror stories called out on linkedin in the past and usually its a sign of a badly dysfunctional organisation. Seems like a silly amount of effort if you're not serious about a move.
So far I've done a screening call with a headhunter (30 minutes), a screening call with a senior bod in the company (45 mins), and a modelling and case study exercise (3 hours).

Next week I have a competency interview (1 hour) and a presentation (2 hours). There may then also be an informal final stage where I meet the team, which is presumably just them checking they can stand working with me.

Thing is the role is good but it's taking the pee.

It's for a corporate finance advisory position in an investment bank.

I fancy the sound of contracting but everyone wants you in an umbrella / PAYE and in IR35, which defeats the purpose for me.
 
Last edited:
Makes you think the people who put in these silly requirements for interview processes actually never had to do it themselves.

Puts people off to even bother, maybe after all of that they low ball you with an low offer.
 
Last edited:
Seems top heavy to me and an unreasonable amount of time. I assume you have been approached as an unknown (profile fit etc), not put forward or recommended by people who work there now and can vouch for you? It's a balance with these things and if you think the job is worth the time then invest. I would ask if it's a progression process, ie, you get to the end of it you secure the role and not something where if bloke Z at the end says "nah" it's over.
 
Last edited:
My rule is two, maybe three meetings.

No tests, spend a day working with them for free or any other rubbish like that. If it is that type of place then it's not for me.

Place where I am now had it spot on when I interviewed and the process was exactly how I liked it. Had two meetings where it seemed more like a fun discussion of what I knew. First with the studio directory then second with him and also the lead. The people were great to chat to and now I work with them and couldn't ask for better people to work with.

When I was younger I put up with more and the places that did make you jump through hoops always ended up being terrible places to work. One place I rejected after several hoops to jump through offered me the job for less than half of what I was on at the time too.
 
Last edited:
Worst I heard was 11 stages, but it was a senior role in a one of the biggest tech companies, and had interviews across 3 countries.

If they're paying seven figures+ for someone then that's fair enough and at that level hiring the wrong person is far worse than rejecting a load of good candidates.

So far I've done a screening call with a headhunter (30 minutes), a screening call with a senior bod in the company (45 mins), and a modelling and case study exercise (3 hours).

Next week I have a competency interview (1 hour) and a presentation (2 hours). There may then also be an informal final stage where I meet the team, which is presumably just them checking they can stand working with me.

Thing is the role is good but it's taking the pee.

It's for a corporate finance advisory position in an investment bank.

I don't think that is unreasonable, the recruiter call isn't necessarily part of the process, other applicants may be via employee referrals or direct applicants.

A telephone screening call is standard to trim down the candidate pool + one formal competency interview and one test/assessment seems like a reasonable ask too. The presentation is presumably just presenting what you did in the assessment and can likely be scheduled at the same time as the competency part. Generally, if you've got as far as a final, informal meet the team/"fit" type interview then the job is already yours bar any red flags or a breakdown during negotiations over comp etc.

Which part would you look to cut out of that? Surely an initial quick phone screen saves time and effort on both sides if it's not a good fit and you need some combo of competency interview + assessment of skills so one of each of those isn't a huge ask.

Unless it's an e-mail job or a small company that can't afford to be picky then a single in-person interview after say a phone screen is risky for a potential full-time employee you're expecting to stay for circa 3 years or perhaps more in the case of senior hires.
 
When I was younger I put up with more and the places that did make you jump through hoops always ended up being terrible places to work. One place I rejected after several hoops to jump through offered me the job for less than half of what I was on at the time too.

That's a bad process on thier part, usually, this is asked about at the start of a process by the external recruiter/head hunter or in-house recruiter/HR person you're dealing with and you have the dilemma of what to reveal, what sort of range to give or whether you're going to push them for a range first etc. Regardless it shouldn't be the case that you get through a process and the offer is a total surprise to you or indeed for them that you turn it down because you're so far apart, if they've not established a range then you can push for it else why waste your time in the first place.
 
Back
Top Bottom