1. Money
Genentech, Fortune magazine’s pick as the best company to work for in the United States, regards recruiting talented employees as a top priority. Recruiting the “right” employees is a lengthy process that can include a candidate returning to the company to interview five-six times. A candidate may participate in as many as 20 - 25 interviews. I’ll bet other best companies approach employee selection with just as much care. I know that, especially at the management or executive level, I invite candidates back at least four times. This enables the hiring manager to meet with the candidate three times. I don't know how anyone can make a good hiring decision after an hour of interaction. How about you? Please let me know what you think in "comments" below.

Quotation of the Week: More Quotations
"Be unreasonable. The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." --George Bernard Shaw
June 20, 2006 at 8:24 am
(1) Melissa says:

I guess I can see where a company such as Genentech has to conduct several interviews with a candidate. I’m sure they get huge responses when they are hiring. However, I think it’s a bit of a waste of time for most companies to conduct so many interviews. I mean, really, having someone come in four times? Twice, I can understand. And maybe a third, but that would consist of lunch, but calling someone in for four interviews just seems like a waste. I can’t imagine what information could possibly be gained that wasn’t gained from the previous interviews.

June 20, 2006 at 9:36 am
(2) Janet says:

20-25 interviews. That sounds like torture to me. As the hiring manager for my company, I don’t want 20 other opinions. I guess we will never make the best company to work for list.

June 23, 2006 at 3:06 am
(3) Jackie says:

I think its ridiculous to have an applicant interview face to face more than 2-3 times. In my opinion, 4 or more interviews tend to signal lack of timely decision making, excessive expectations on applicants that may have other options available to them, and wasteful spending on the company’s behalf. With the exception of Governmental jobs, national security, and sensitive documentation/material companies, A company that conducts excessive interviews comes across as an entity that has disorder and interest conflicts among the ranks or People with grand titles that lack the authority to be proficient in hiring candidates within a reasonable time frame.
Resumes, coverletters, phone interviews and recruiters are the first steps in helping key decision makers. Testing and background checks also help. These resources and 2-3 one hour or more interviews should definetly help the key decision makers in most cases. Most recruiters I have met or questioned when interviewed are college interns that are gaining experience. Understandable, yet this lack of expertise in the recruiting field sends signals that the interviewing process will most likely be tedious. I am facing my 3rd interview with a company and was told that I would most likely be interviewed 2-3 more times. UGH! I am quickly losing interest in what seemed to be a pleasant opportunity. Time is an essential when one is seeking viable employment. You may not learn much in 1 or 2 hour interview sessions, but no matter which way you put it, being too careful can have repercussions and risks attatched to them as well.(Enron, Governmental employees information “lost or stolen”, carefully screened and hired applicants in the financial world, exxon oil, airline industries, plus many more)In the 5-25 interviewing cases? What gives a company the pyschological right to expect a candidate to put “all” their eggs in that one basket? Good for the applicants who decide to go the distance and are hired. Its not so good for those who go the long distance only to be let down politely. Good for the companies who hire after a maxium of 2-3 interviews. They at least “get it” As for companies that interview over and over and over plus over and over and over…?? Sometimes its easy to see why there are revolving doors in most organizations. Money and time that could be spent on improving a company’s image or investing in better products and services or training programs to keep it competitive is being wasted in areas that could use a serious overhaul.

June 24, 2006 at 1:01 pm
(4) Ida says:

I also do not believe is seeing the application more than 3 times … especially when your panel might have to change or where there are external influences ….. a 2nd time should be enough … if its for a top executive position maybe the 3rd … but I believe it will be the time when all negotiations will be discussed thoroughly and finalized.

September 29, 2008 at 5:57 pm
(5) Liz says:

In my opinion multiple interviews are good for both parties involved. On one hand, the candidate for the job has an opportunity to shine and give good impression during the interviews. And the employer has an opportunity to really get to know the candidate and decide if the candidate meets the criteria for the position. Sometimes, first impressions can be deceiving. The 2nd and 3rd meeting will open doors for more communication which can benefit both parties involved.

November 12, 2008 at 5:04 pm
(6) VK says:

Thanks for informing, I will never apply in these type of companies whose decision making skills are so poor.

May 21, 2009 at 12:18 pm
(7) DW says:

Agree with the general sentiments above… multiple rounds of interviews are a waste of time and resources in most cases. I’m impressed by decision-making in an organization. Most hiring decisions are gut-feel and probably made in the first five or ten minutes (they are with me as a hiring manager!) As I candidate, I’m decidedly UNIMPRESSED by an organization that can’t decide efficiently. Who are the key decision makers? Why can’t they make a decision? I want to be a part of an organization that acts decisively.

November 20, 2009 at 4:30 pm
(8) Vasile says:

Well, I certainly wouldn’t go to a such great length to get a job.
Of the four companies I’ve worked for since 1998, at first place I was employed after the first talk with the general manager. At the second, after one interview. At the third, I was invited, and at the fourth there were three interviews: a phone talk, a business presentation meeting and a technical interview.
This is my current workplace and it’s the best I’ve ever had so far.
The only reason I would go to more than three interviews would be if I had several choices to make, really liked that one company, and wanted to know if it’s a good idea for me to choose them rather than the others.

What I’d like to see more often in a recruitment process, is the opportunity for the candidate to hang out with the other employees, see what they are up to and what’s their usual work day like.
Some companies do this, and I think it’s a great idea.

April 25, 2012 at 4:12 pm
(9) ganjanz says:

Multiple interviews did very well for me. In fact, it gave me an instant bird’s eye view of the current situation, mission and vision of the company. Not only that, but also I had an initial chance to talk with and meet with department heads.

March 22, 2013 at 7:34 am
(10) Gladys Owusu-Asare says:

Having multiple interviews to get the best out of a prospective employee is the best. However, interviews should not exceed three times; a maximum of three times that is even for executive positions. And where it is difficult to do thorough background checks of the recruit due to distance and non availability of contacts.

Interviewers must not forget that time is money and wasting manhours of 2-3 hrs for more than three interviews can affect their output and efficiency. Allowances and refreshments for interviewers and interviewees is another financial factor that must be considered.

Leave a Comment

Line and paragraph breaks are automatic. Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title="">, <b>, <i>, <strike>

©2014 About.com. All rights reserved.