Anyone see the article on Fast Company on how Amazon uses current employees within their interview process?
My organization uses a number of folks in the standard interview process as well. At times I feel maybe too many, but none the less from the candidate experience it does allow one to ask a lot of questions, get an array of feedback, and identify the thread that ties it all together. Could this be a bad thing?
Interesting to see how Amazon does this. For the in-house recruiters out there lurking on the RBC.....Are you currently using any innovative ways to have existing employees play a role in your interview process?
@ Tim: "I haven't seen any clear research that shows you need more than 3-4 people in a round and no more than two rounds to make most quality hiring decisions (There are exceptions to this), and IMHO: the fewer you need, the better.. If your people CAN'T routinely do this, your company has a problem, and its name is probably: BLOATOCRACY
*Folks, if you have seen some research along these lines, please let me know.
The missing piece of this article is how well this process performs. Do they in fact only end up hiring "keepers" because of these bar raisers? It would be interesting to see their retention stats and/or any other performance metrics tied to having this step in their hiring.
I am actually a proponent of panel interviews, but only in/when it facilitates efficiency and obtaining well-rounded input, not just for the sake of having more people involved. It is also EXTREMELY important that each member of the interview team - individual or panel - is properly trained and has a specific and relevant focus so there is no redundant or filler interview questions.
As far as how many people or how many rounds is appropriate, I think it depends on the situation and position. But, I agree with Keith that as few as possible to reach a decision should be the goal.
Most times I was on the candidate side of these "thorough" interview processes, I often wondered: how much more of this do they need to subject me to before they figure out what ever it is they are looking for... That is especially the case when dealing with a company that thinks they've got it going on, yet their interviewers and interview questions seem suspiciously non-job-related, random and/or give the impression their team is practicing armchair psychology when interpreting answers.
Each organization is different, as is their culture, but I would caution that your interview process should mirror the culture in your company. For example, if your organizations management style is very hands-on, then you should have more than average involved in the recruiting process. If your style is very hands-off, the recruiting process should reflect that (more than one interview, but one interviewer at a time), to reflect the true culture.
All that being said, I think you really need to look at WHY your process is the way it is. Do you have so many interviews because you cannot coordinate the schedules of everyone who wants to be involved? Do people want to be involved because bad decisions have been made in the past? Do you have many in the process because everyone thinks they know the best way to do things?
Figure out what works best for you. Have relevant people in the process, but don't overburden the process (unless that is the true culture of your company). If you are working with a recruiter, should you reduce the number of interviews? Again, up to your process (talk to your recruiter about the process, though, so they can effectively communicate it to candidates!).