4 min read · Aug 25, 2023
I get a lot of (crap) emails, just like everyone else, and one recently caught my attention. A B2B iGaming platform developer, Gamingtec, is apparently looking for SEO content writers, the latest job title that every company thinks it needs. We won’t get sidetracked with the scam Google is running with its supposed SEO requirements and that entire ecosystem.
Instead, we’ll focus on Gamingtec and its hiring process. First, candidates who make it into the first round will have an online interview (the company is mostly remote) with HR, which is reasonable. However, only after that are the candidates required to show their portfolios. These two steps seem to be backwards.
But, there’s more. Candidates who survive the first two rounds, according to the job description, get the pleasure of sitting through another interview — this one apparently lasts 2 hours!
If it takes any company 2 hours (with 4 representatives participating) to determine if a candidate is a good fit, it is seriously misguided and has no concept of efficiency. Given the fact that most hiring managers make a hiring decision in the first 10–15 minutes of an interview, what the hell is there to talk about for the next 90-plus minutes?
This is especially true in a job such as SEO content writing. The portfolio will show whether or not the candidate is capable. From there, because the position is remote, all that’s left is understanding if the individual can meet deadlines and understand the assignment.
The Myth of Comprehensive Assessment
Proponents of the extended interview argue that these prolonged sessions provide ample time to comprehensively evaluate a candidate’s skills, character, and cultural fit within the organization. However, the assumption that two hours of questioning can yield a more accurate and nuanced understanding of a candidate’s abilities is questionable at best.
In reality, a marathon interview is more likely to lead to fatigue and anxiety on the candidate’s part rather than an accurate portrayal of their capabilities. The pressure to maintain a high level of performance over such an extended period can distort their responses and hinder genuine interaction. Rather than capturing a true representation of the candidate’s skills and personality, the two-hour interview often captures their ability to endure prolonged questioning.
The Psychological Toll on Candidates
Job interviews are inherently stressful experiences. The weight of judgment, the desire to make a good impression, and the uncertainty about the outcome can all contribute to heightened anxiety. Expanding the duration of the interview only intensifies this pressure, potentially leading candidates to experience heightened stress levels and affecting their ability to showcase their true potential.
Moreover, the two-hour interview can disrupt the candidate’s daily routine and commitments, leading to unnecessary inconveniences. It’s crucial to acknowledge that an interview process that values the candidate’s time and well-being is more likely to attract top-tier talent. An unnecessarily protracted interview, on the other hand, might deter highly qualified individuals who value a respectful and balanced recruitment process.
Diminishing Returns on Evaluation
While the intention behind a longer interview might be to obtain a more in-depth understanding of the candidate, it’s essential to question whether this objective is truly achieved. The reality is that the most critical aspects of a candidate’s suitability can often be gauged within a shorter timeframe. Effective communication skills, problem-solving abilities, and cultural alignment can all be assessed through targeted questions and exercises that focus on quality over quantity.
Furthermore, relying solely on the marathon interview format might overshadow the importance of other evaluation methods, such as practical assessments, work samples, and even reference checks. These alternative methods can offer a more holistic perspective on a candidate’s capabilities and potential for success in the role, without subjecting them to prolonged stress and pressure.
Shifting the Focus to Quality and Inclusivity
The length of an interview should not be a proxy for the rigor of evaluation. Rather than fixating on time, hiring managers should prioritize the quality of interactions during the interview process. Constructing well-thought-out questions, creating scenarios that mirror real-world challenges, and allowing candidates to showcase their problem-solving abilities can provide a much more accurate picture of their potential to contribute effectively.
Additionally, the two-hour interview might inadvertently introduce bias into the process. Candidates who are more extroverted or well-practiced in interviewing techniques might excel in such an environment, while introverted or nervous candidates might struggle to showcase their true abilities. This bias can lead to a lack of diversity in the hiring process and prevent organizations from benefiting from a broader range of perspectives and talents.
Reimagining the Interview Landscape
A two-hour interview, while perhaps well-intentioned, falls short of being an effective and inclusive method for assessing candidates. It places undue stress on individuals, might not accurately gauge their capabilities, and can inadvertently introduce bias into the process. In a world where time is a precious commodity and diversity of thought is a key driver of innovation, it’s time to rethink the recruitment process.
Hiring managers should prioritize concise, well-designed interview experiences that focus on meaningful interactions and evaluation methods that truly reflect a candidate’s potential to excel in the role. By valuing quality over quantity, we can create a recruitment process that respects candidates’ time, reduces stress, and enables organizations to make more informed hiring decisions. It’s time to move beyond the absurdity of marathon interviews and usher in a new era of effective, inclusive, and efficient recruitment practices.
