[dcatx]

I don't mind the "show me something you've coded" as an alternative to code challenges, but the way it is presented in this article reads an awful lot like it is a way to identify who the interviewer likes nerding out with the most, not the person who is most likely to be the best fit for the organization's needs.

> Companies want to standardize their hiring when really they should be looking to customize it to each candidate.

This is not the right idea. You should not be customizing your hiring process to each candidate. A standard hiring process with accountability for interviewers to follow the process is incredibly important if you want to reliably hire high quality talent as an organization grows.

"Customizing" for each candidate is a great way to give interviewers permission to make the interview simple for the people they like and brutal for the people they don't. It is also a great way to overwhelm new hiring managers who are still trying to figure out how to evaluate talent as they grow their teams.

> Lots of companies want to spread the blame of a bad hire across a committee of 4 or 5 people. That is also wrong.

This is not why multiple people are involved in a hiring process. Leaving hiring entirely in the hands of one person guarantees biases make their way into the hiring process and result in a lower quality team.

[saghm]

> This is not the right idea. You should not be customizing your hiring process to each candidate. A standard hiring process with accountability for interviewers to follow the process is incredibly important if you want to reliably hire high quality talent as an organization grows.

Yeah, doing a custom interview process per candidate sounds like a discrimination lawsuit waiting to happen. I don't know how you could possibly defend against the claim that the interviews are designed to help some candidates and hurt others if you're literally on the record saying you actively try not to use the same interview process for all candidates.