To be put off by multi-stage interviews?

[SoloWanderer]

I’ve noticed that many companies are implementing multi-stage interview processes, and I find it really off-putting. It feels like an endless cycle of interviews, and I can’t help but wonder if it’s worth it. Do you find multi-stage interviews discouraging, or do you think they’re necessary for finding the right fit?

wrong thread sorry!

Depends on the level really and who is conducting the interviews - if you're interviewing for something high level, it's likely your peers don't have to time to dedicate to interview 5-10 people, so some early stage interviews are required to slim down the pool of applicants.

If you're applying for something entry level or similar, it would put me off!

They're hell on earth
Especially if you get through several rounds to final stage then just miss out.

I had five for my current role if you include the initial HR one!

It's a senior role. It was ok.

I actually think more than one interview is pointless.

The whole point of asking people to apply is to check by their CV or the application form that the have the necessary qualifications and experience.

A few of those people , certainly not more than 4, should be selected for interview and recruiters really ought to be capable of making a decision then.

I agree, 2 is enough for junior roles and 2-3 max for more senior - including the HR screening. It drags on and on and on otherwise. If I need more, I do an assessment center for the 2nd round to accommodate for the interview and the task so the candidates don't have to come back.

I have been in the situation as a hiring manager where my (very controlling) hierarchy absolutely wanted to interview the final 2-3 candidates, it was useless and ridiculous.

Oh God yeah, interminable processes are really offputting. I had one this year that took about 2 months end to end, but was offered something else round about the time I finally got a 'no'.

Unless it's super senior I do think places should avoid multiple levels. My current job (quite well paid, but not senior) I got after one very informal interview online and a written test, which was much more humane.

Two stages has generally been my experience both as an applicant and a hiring manager although I agree one should be plenty, especially for more junior roles.

I think hybrid working has intensified the multi stage thing as, from a hiring perspective, it’s relatively easy to do first interviews online but then you want to bring your favourite candidates back for a face to face to get a sense of them in person. I find “meeting the team” is increasingly common as well. Not necessarily a bad thing but adds another layer.

Three stages is standard in my industry.

I hate them, but could be worse. When I got a job in Offshore Banking, the initial interview was on Mainland UK and then I was flown to Jersey to do assessments, psychometric tests and a long interview. There were a few of us there at once (a few different roles were being filled) and they took us out for dinner and were watching our every move. One fella got very drunk and he didn't get the job for that reason, they were concerned he'd bring the banks name into disrepute on the Island!

When I applied to be a holiday rep too, it was a 3 stage interview on the day, one of which was very bizarre at the time, but made sense after doing the job, then it was 5 days of assessments and "training" in a hotel, we had 8 hour clasroom sessions with assessments at the end of each day, they would watch us at breakfast and dinner, they would take us on bar crawls until the early hours and see how we behaved, how much we drank, how we interacted with people, how much that affected us for early starts the next day, how we were interacting in the hotel bar. It was truly horrendous and stressful but made complete sense why they did it, once you were working in resort.

Ds applying for degree apprenticeships often had to do 2 or even three stages at 17 years old! It was a good way of getting an idea of what working at the company as an apprentice was likely to be like though. Some were totally disorganised.

I'm about to go into round 5 of an interview process! Really hoping it's the last one.

I wonder if some are designed so they can defend any allegations of an unfair process.

My weirdest interview was for a role in a school as part of a big admin team paying just above minimum wage.

There were 8 of us doing Apprentice style rounds of tasks, some were solo and some were team tasks. Then panel questions. Fortunately it was all on one day.

It was very odd, we were half expecting a camera crew to jump out! Some tasks were totally irrelevant to the job so it felt like they were just toying with us.
As the day wore on us candidates became more chatty and were quietly saying how odd it all was and just seemed overkill for the role on offer.
Unsurprisingly, both successful interviewees turned it down.

A long time ago, but a graduate assessment centre for one of the major banks I attended as a candidate was like the crystal maze! I remember being shown into a room with a pulley-type contraption with balls and mini bean bag things and having to instruct someone blindfolded how to do something.... I didn't get the job but have never forgotten it.

I don’t mind a long winded process if it’s on the same day (like teaching or school leadership interviews), but three interviews/activities or whatever on separate days is potentially a massive waste of my time . Unless I was desperate for the role, I’d swerve this type of set up.

Thinking about it, even for a retail position there were 3 stages. Online with some daft statements agree/disagree and basic maths and I think comprehension exercise. If you passed that then it was a group interview. Finally a one to one with the Department manager. Then HR told me a start date. Seems a lot but actually I remember the group interview did weed out those who didn't really want to work there. One woman in particular was determined to fail.

In short, yes. It is hell.

I've been on the other side of the fence a few times and with one interview we knew at first stage that we really wanted candidate A. But the big wigs at second stage ( who wouldn't have been line managing, they were far too senior but needed to sign it off and feel important) made us send 3 candidates halfway across the country do a presentation etc when we already knew who we wanted. Such a waste of the other 2 candidates time!

We usually do 2 occasionally 3, but often only invite 1 or 2 back for the second and effectively it’s confirmation. I want that if I’m going to work with someone for years. If I want someone for a macdonalds and I expect them to leave in 6 months 20 mins once may be enough.

For my current job (min wage) I did
A telephone interview
A group interview with tasks
An individual interview

Bonkers

1 HR is basic CV fit and usefulness check; this one is essential as nobody else has time to meet and weed out unsuitable candidates.
1 with line manager plus a colleague is essential; dig into true fit for the role.
1 wirh EXCO member is essential for senior roles only; it saves a Head of ABC being removed in week 2 of probation because their main EXCO candidate can't get along with them.
I have occasionally seen an extra if the person is under consideration for 2 roles.

I can see why it's annoying, but business moves quickly and the alternative of an EXCO member sitting in on CV weeding is just impossible.

Agree OP. I did EIGHT rounds of interviews and an assessment once, only for the job to be given to an internal candidate 🙄.

Absolute massive waste of everybody's time.

My worst was 5, including 2 presentations. I just saw on LinkedIn it went to an internal candidate.
The zoom/Teams era has allowed HR to take the piss.

Ds is going forward to interview 4 for a graduate job. I feel like he hasn't done enough in his life to be interviewed at such length tbh.