Improving Interview Loops for Better Hiring Decisions

Who's sat in a debrief where half the room mumbles weak "yes" and 45 minutes later you walk out with no decision? I've seen 100s of these. The problem isn't your interviewers. It's that you're treating hiring like a vote instead of an evidence problem. Here are 3 moves that kill debriefs (and what to do instead): 1. Talking Before Writing Walk into the room and start discussing, junior folks wait to hear what senior people say, you end up with groupthink. Every interviewer submits written notes and a hire/no-hire rating before the debrief. If you didn't write, you speak first. Juniors before seniors. This preserves the unique signal each person collected instead of everyone converging on the same safe opinion. 2. Defending The Weak Yes Someone mumbles weak yes and the room debates vibes for 20 minutes. The best debriefs I've seen force 2 buckets: "Yes, because..." with rubric-anchored evidence naming specific examples from the interview, or "No, unless..." with the exact instrument to close the gap. A 45-min work sample. A hiring-manager deep-dive on the weak area. 2 back-channel references. If you can't name the instrument and run it fast, it defaults to “No.” This eliminates the consensus theater where everyone's nodding but nobody's committing. 3. Letting "No, Unless" Become "Maybe Forever" You run the extra interview or work sample. New evidence comes in. Then everyone debates the new evidence for another 45 minutes with no decision. The point of "No, unless" is to get specific signal that converts the decision - not to create another round of consensus theater. Before you run the instrument, name what good looks like: "If they score 8/10 on the work sample, that's a hire." Then run it, score it, and decide. If the new evidence is still split, you need a decider. Hiring manager calls it. The group brings evidence, one person owns the decision. No instrument should take longer than a week to run, and no decision should take longer than 48 hours after you have the results. — Debriefs fail when nobody can answer: what specific evidence would change your mind? Force that question up front and you'll make faster decisions.

How long does it really take to learn a new tech and build something practical? For most good engineers: about two weeks. Not years of “deep experience.” Not a laundry list of buzzwords. Just the ability to read docs, get hands-on, and adapt quickly. Let's say, Maya joins a team. She’s never used Kafka and is suddenly tasked with building a Kafka related feature. Day 1 → spins up the quickstart, sends her first test message. Day 3 → builds a simple producer/consumer. Day 7 → wires it into the app behind a feature flag. Day 10 → ships the first version in a test env, adds observability, fixes edge cases. No heroics. No magic. Just focus, iteration, and judgment. Now imagine Maya in a standard hiring process. ❌ Rejected because she has “only 2 years of experience" and does not have Kafka on resume. ❌ Rejected because her DSA solution wasn’t “optimal enough.” That’s the disconnect. Day to day engineering is about: - Reading docs, RFCs, issues. - Mapping new ideas onto known patterns. - Building, breaking, fixing. - Adding observability. - Communicating trade-offs clearly. That’s 80% of the work. But interviews? - Puzzle solving under a stopwatch. - Trivia about tools you may never use. - Arbitrary year-count checklists. We end up filtering for puzzle solvers instead of builders. This isn’t just bad for candidates. It shows up in products, code quality and more. Many “star products” of big tech weren’t grown inside the carefully engineered hiring pipeline, but rather acqui-hired. Why? Because the pipeline optimizes for avoiding bad hires, not for spotting people who can learn fast and ship. When we can’t recognize talent, we buy the outcomes later. At 10x the cost. A better interview loop might look like this: 1. Doc Dive: Candidate reads a short spec + docs, produces a one-page plan. 2. Guided Build: Pair on a small feature in a scaffolded repo. Googling/Prompting allowed. 3. Change Request: Introduce a new constraint, watch how they adapt. 4. Retro: Ask what they’d do with two more days. Signals: comprehension, iteration speed, trade-offs, clarity of thought. This mirrors real work far better than whiteboards and trivia. Hiring shapes culture. Hire for puzzles → we get puzzle-driven engineering: ceremony-heavy, slow, fearful of production. Hire for learning → we get shipping culture: fast loops, resilient systems, products that evolve with users. If it takes two weeks for a capable engineer to learn and ship, then hiring should be about finding two-week learners. We should stop pretending the job is a quiz show. The real job is messy, contextual, and iterative. The companies that figure this out won’t just hire better. They’ll ship better. If engineers can ramp up in weeks, why do companies still gate them with years-long checklists and puzzle games? Is it caution? Legacy? Or simply a blind spot in how we define “talent”?

While leading TA at Going, we implemented a search-based cohort hiring model, and it became one of the most impactful shifts in how recruiting operated. We’d open a role with a defined application window, move candidates through the process on a shared timeline, and make decisions with structure and clarity. It wasn’t rigid. We stayed flexible. Sometimes the right candidate wasn’t in that first cohort, or timing didn’t work out. When that happened, we’d reset and run the search again. But even with that, it was still far more effective than managing candidates in five different stages with no shared context or end in sight. Here’s what this approach unlocked: ✅ Aligned timelines and expectations Everyone knew what was happening and when. It gave hiring teams space to plan, focus, and reduce context switching — which led to faster, sharper decisions and a more cohesive process. ✅ Faster, more confident decisions Evaluating candidates side by side helped patterns emerge more clearly. Strong alignment stood out. Misalignment did too. ✅ Less recency bias When everyone moves through at the same pace, decisions become more objective. You’re not relying on memory from weeks ago. ✅ More consistent feedback When interviews happen in a tight window, feedback loops actually work. Interviewers stay engaged and hiring managers don’t lose context. ✅ Better candidate experience Candidates had clear expectations and timely communication. No wondering where they stood or what came next. ✅ Cleaner, more actionable data Because the process was consistent, the data meant something. We could identify drop-off points, optimize pass-through rates, and actually learn from the search. And the results spoke for themselves: 📉 We reduced time to fill by 41% ✅ We saw a 100% offer acceptance rate. ⭐ And a 5/5 QoH rating within the new hire's first 90 days. Was it perfect? No. It takes planning. It takes alignment. And yes, sometimes you’ll need to rerun a search. But in a fast-moving org, the clarity, speed, and quality this model gave us made it more than worth it. Hiring doesn’t need to feel reactive. With the right structure in place, it becomes focused, fair, and far more effective. Have you tried something similar? Would love to hear how it worked for you. 👇

Want stronger, more lasting hires? (Silly question, of course you do.) Here’s my take: The interview cycle should be deeper and longer, not shorter. I helped a client figure this out. They were struggling with new hires: - Mismatched expectations between the company and the employee. - Candidates who looked great on paper or aced quick interviews but were struggling in the role. - New hires weren’t staying long—either because of poor fit or dissatisfaction with the role vs. what was promised. I dug into the problem: talking to new hires, candidates who didn’t get offers, and the current team. The issue? The interview process was too short to assess fit - for both candidates and the company! We made changes to lengthen and deepen the cycle: - Multiple interview rounds: Involving key team members from different departments to get diverse perspectives. - Collaborative project: Candidates worked on a project (compensated, of course) to see how they fit with the team. - Shadowing opportunities: Candidates observed the team’s day-to-day workflow to get a real feel for the environment. - Outlined the Process: created a clear document that explained the scope and timeline for candidates before they applied. Hiring is a big decision—for you and the candidate. Rushing through it does neither of you justice. I know the pressure to fill roles quickly. I know long cycles can be tough for candidates. But the cost of a bad fit is way higher—for both parties. The key? Transparent communication about the process and why each step matters. The result: stronger, more lasting hires.

I've updated one of my previous articles that's become increasingly relevant in today's challenging hiring environment: "Interviewing By Putting To Work." In a job market flooded with qualified candidates where each posting generates hundreds of applications, traditional interviews are proving increasingly inadequate at identifying the right person. They measure interview performance, not job performance. For years, I've found that having candidates actually do the job—either as short-term contractors or through substantive work samples—provides dramatically better hiring outcomes than question-and-answer sessions alone. This approach reveals not just technical skills but also how people think, collaborate, and handle uncertainty. I've outlined three practical models for implementing this approach, depending on your constraints and the role you're filling. Each offers a more reliable path to identifying talent that will truly thrive in your specific environment. In my experience, the extra time invested in working interviews pays tremendous dividends in reducing costly hiring mistakes and building higher-performing teams. The most significant predictor of future performance isn't what candidates say about their past work—it's what you directly observe them doing now. I've revised and expanded the article with evidence-based approaches and practical implementation guidance: https://lnkd.in/eY3EZdvU Sometimes our clients at Flatiron Software and Snapshot AI hire us to do a POC project first and then hire us for longer-term projects. What methods have you found most effective for identifying the right talent in this challenging market?

𝐈’𝐯𝐞 𝐧𝐨𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐞𝐝 𝐚 𝐜𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐫 𝐩𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧: 𝐡𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐧𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐢𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐫𝐮𝐬𝐡𝐞𝐝 𝐡𝐢𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 When teams are lean and resources are tight, the pressure to “just fill the seat” is real. But speed without structure is one of the biggest drivers of early exits. Here are a few strategies I’ve seen work when the goal is making the right hire—not just a fast one 👇 🚫 𝐃𝐨𝐧’𝐭 𝐒𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐥𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐅𝐢𝐫𝐬𝐭 “𝐀𝐯𝐚𝐢𝐥𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞” 𝐂𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐝𝐚𝐭𝐞 Taking shortcuts can be costly. A rushed hire often incurs greater expenses than a more structured search, especially in today’s talent market where exceptional are available, but poor screening can obscure them. 𝐇𝐞𝐫𝐞’𝐬 𝐡𝐨𝐰 𝐞𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐨𝐲𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐞𝐧𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐰 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐬𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐞𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐜𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐬 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐝𝐞𝐥𝐚𝐲𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐡𝐢𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠: ✅ Separate “Speed” from “Quality” ☞ Fast hiring doesn’t mean fewer steps; it means clearer ones. ☞ Define must-have versus trainable skills upfront. ☞ Align hiring managers on what success looks like in 90 days. ☞ Remove subjective criteria that create bias or confusion. ☞ Clarity accelerates decision-making. ✅ Use a Tiered Screening Model ☞ Not every candidate requires the same level of review. ☞ Stage 1: Resume + knockout criteria (automated or recruiter-led). ☞ Stage 2: Structured phone or video screen (skills + motivation). ☞ Stage 3: Focused panel or role-based assessment. ☞ This approach saves time while maintaining quality. ✅ Standardize Interviews (Especially Now) ☞ Recessions amplify hiring mistakes. ☞ Use consistent interview questions. ☞ Score candidates against defined competencies. ☞ Train interviewers to evaluate evidence rather than relying on instincts. ☞ Structured interviews consistently outperform gut feelings. ✅ Keep a Warm Bench (Even When You’re Not Hiring) ☞ Hiring should never start from scratch. ☞ Maintain relationships with silver-medalist candidates. ☞ Partner with training programs or workforce pipelines. ☞ Build talent pools for hard-to-fill roles. ☞ Future you will appreciate this preparation. ✅ Measure What Actually Matters ☞ If you don’t track it, you can’t improve it. ☞ Focus on time-to-productivity, quality of hire at six months ☞ Early turnover signals The best organizations don’t rush decisions. They design processes that scale with pressure. 💬 How are you adjusting your hiring process right now? #hire #jobs #jobseekers #hiringtips #interviewtips #interviewprocess

After building TestGorilla from 0 to thousands of customers across 100+ countries, I've learned that most companies fail at hiring before they even post a job. Here are the 5 steps that separate world-class hiring from expensive mistakes: 1) Define your talent requirements (most skip this) "We need a great developer" isn't a hiring strategy - it's wishful thinking. Great companies get surgical about exactly who they're looking for: • Specific technical competencies (not just "knows Python") • Required experience levels for each skill • Cultural attributes that predict success in YOUR environment • Growth trajectory you need (steady performer vs. high-potential) Vague requirements = mediocre hires. Every time. 2) Identify their decision drivers (this is where magic happens) You're not just competing on salary. Top talent has options. Ask yourself: • What frustrates high performers in their current roles? • What career aspirations keep them up at night? • What would make them leave a "safe" job for yours? • What do they value more than money? When you understand their psychology, you can craft offers that speak to their souls, not just their bank accounts. 3) Design your evaluation framework (objectivity beats gut instinct) Most hiring decisions are made in the first 10 seconds of an interview. That's not evaluation - that's bias confirmation. Build systems that predict actual performance: • Skills-based assessments that mirror real work • Structured interviews with consistent scoring • Objective measures of potential and values fit • Efficient processes that respect everyone's time Data beats "good vibes" every single time. 4) Establish your selection criteria (know your non-negotiables) What actually distinguishes your top performers from average ones? And here's the harder question: Why should A-players choose your process over companies with bigger brands and deeper pockets? Your hiring process IS your product. Make it remarkable: • Faster time-to-decision than competitors • More meaningful evaluation than "tell me about yourself" • Clearer communication throughout • Genuine respect for candidates' time and expertise 5) Communicate your hiring philosophy (story beats specs) Stop posting job descriptions that read like legal documents. Start telling stories: • Why does this role exist? • What impact will this person have? • What's the vision they'll help build? • What's your approach to finding and developing talent? People don't join companies. They join missions. TAKEAWAY: Most companies treat hiring like procurement - find the cheapest resource that meets basic requirements. World-class companies treat hiring like product development - deeply understand your users (candidates), design remarkable experiences, and iterate based on data. The companies that master this don't just fill roles faster. They build competitive advantages one hire at a time.

📱 My phone’s been blowing up lately—colleagues on both sides of the hiring game are venting about the same thing. Job seekers can’t land roles, and hiring managers can’t find people who actually stay. About half of my network who were job-hunting have found something, but the other half are still stuck in the grind. Meanwhile, companies tell me that even when they do make a hire, retention is a nightmare—new employees are bouncing within six months. The disconnect is real: companies are hiring, candidates are applying, but something is clearly broken. Traditional hiring—bloated job descriptions, ATS black holes, and never-ending interview rounds—is failing everyone. So, what needs to change? 🔄 Here’s what I’ve seen work: ✅ Ditch the ATS Dependence – Get back to human recruiting instead of relying on keyword filters. ✍️ Fix Job Descriptions – Make them clear, real, and relevant—cut the jargon. 🤝 Prioritize Personal Connections – Hiring managers should actively engage instead of passively posting. 🎯 Focus on Skills, Not Just Titles – Look at what candidates can actually do, not just where they’ve been. ⏳ Speed Up the Process – The best talent won’t wait around for a four-week approval cycle. 💬 Improve the Candidate Experience – Give real feedback and make the process transparent. Here’s a real-world fix I put in place: At a previous company, the hiring pipeline was a mess—ATS filters blocked great candidates, and the process dragged on. I introduced a referral-first hiring approach, tapping employees’ networks before posting publicly. We also replaced multiple early-stage screenings with a 30-minute call with the hiring manager. 📉 Time-to-hire dropped 35% 🎯 Quality of hires improved—better fits, fewer regrets 📈 Retention rates increased—candidates knew exactly what they were signing up for 🔑 Bottom line: Hiring is broken, but it doesn’t have to be. The best hires come through real connections, not algorithms. What’s been your biggest hiring (or job search) frustration lately? Drop a comment 👇 #Hiring #Recruiting #JobSearch #TalentStrategy #HR #FutureOfWork

I used to think the hardest part of hiring was sourcing candidates. Turns out, most firms lose the best talent before interviews even begin, because of subtle bias in job descriptions and unstructured interviews. Here’s what I learned: 1. Unbiased Job Descriptions Matter Gender-neutral language: Replace “he/she” with “they/their,” and swap masculine/feminine-coded words for neutral alternatives like “goal-oriented” or “team-player.” Clear, accessible language: Avoid jargon, acronyms, and long lists of “must-haves” that unintentionally filter out qualified candidates. Inclusive titles: Use “software engineer” instead of “rockstar coder,” “firefighter” instead of “fireman.” 2. Structured Interviews Reduce Bias Standardized questions: Ask every candidate the same questions in the same order to avoid “likability bias.” Scoring rubrics: Grade answers objectively on merit, not gut feeling. Behavioral + situational questions: Focus on skills and past performance, not shared backgrounds. Diverse panels & limited chit-chat: Multiple perspectives + minimal small talk reduce affinity bias. Here’s the kicker: these simple practices don’t just make hiring fairer, they make it smarter. Firms using inclusive, structured approaches attract more qualified, diverse candidates, shorten time-to-hire, and build teams that actually perform. If you’re still relying on old-school job posts and free-flow interviews, you’re leaving talent and revenue on the table.

What if the best interview you’ve ever had... actually felt like the job? Not a test. Not a performance. Just a thoughtful, scenario-based conversation—designed to reveal how you think, collaborate, and adapt in real-time. Recently, I tested a new approach to hiring for a key role on my team. I'm calling it a "Conversational Assessment." It's structured but flows more naturally. It's designed with intention but totally unscripted. And it gets straight to the signal that actually matters. Too many interview assessments feel bloated and performative.. • Homework assignments that stretch into 8+ hours. • Panels that ask the same questions three different ways. • High-potentials being filtered out for not being polished “just right.” Instead, I built a format that simulates the real work. Talking through real-world challenges. Following the thread of a candidate’s thought process. Exploring how they pivot, listen, and solve problems in real time. The feedback so far? •“That was the most natural interview I’ve ever had.” • “I didn’t feel like I had to perform—I could just show how I think.” • “I learned more about how you approach your work in 30 minutes than I usually do in a full interview loop.” We get better insight to how people think and operate. Our candidates feel less of a burden to prepare performative work. Everyone shares a much clearer view of what it could be like to work together. Another unique aspect of this approach is that it forces you to reveal aspects of how you work too—and this may even show a candidate that THEY aren't a fit for YOU as a manager! This is still early days. I'm still learning. But it’s a direction that feels right. Huge shoutout to my talent partner Hannah McCord—who not only embraced the approach while helping me hire but has also been sharing the concept with a few other hiring managers at Fleetio who are experimenting with it too. —— This is one small way we’re rethinking how hiring can reflect the way we work and what we value at Fleetio. If you'd like to learn more, check out the first comment for some key roles we're hiring for now!