They simply can't understand that I would give up when I realised there were three interviews, or that I needed to spend a day doing a test.
Sure if I did well in one interview the other two would likely be fine too, but equally... I could just go to another company that says "OK" after a conversation in a bar and save myself a lot of friction.
So HR gets in touch and says "We would like to bring you in for the first set of interviews next week some time, when would work?" I said, "Uhh, there must be a mistake, I already talked with the hiring manager, I thought you were calling to discuss salary, benefits, start date, etc." HR: "Hmm, no, that's not right. Did you even fill out our application online yet?" Conversation was pretty much over from my standpoint at that point. What a crappy experience and a waste of time!
And it was a very productive discussion. We talked about a lot of some pretty high-level stuff, both technology-wise and business-wise -- possible failure modes in their fraud detection process; customer acquisition strategies moving forward, etc.. Not in a fuzzy, "whatever" way -- but in a serious, analytical way. You know, high-level, adult stuff.
The weird part? When I got the schedule for the interview (btw several more hours in length than the "couple of hours" we had initially talked about -- but we'll let that slide for now), the first thing they wanted be to do was come in at 9 AM for a session on "logic problems" -- you know: pirates, gold coins, poisoned wine bottles -- for a whole hour.
To which I wanted to say, "Wait -- didn't we just have a conversation in that cafe demonstrating exactly the level of critical thinking skills you're looking for (arguably at a much more nuanced level, in fact), and applied actual, real problems -- not silly, made-up puzzle problems?"
But of course I felt too shy to just come out and say that. So made up some excuse about "accepting another offer", instead.
There are more people than you'd expect who can talk the talk but can't code at the same level. In the majority of companies, I'd bet there aren't too many openings for engineers in such a narrow role. If you don't want to work with an 'idea person', would you want to work with an 'idea engineer'?
Multi-day interviews are likely overkill, but a full day interview is completely fair. There's no need to do 4 back-to-back algorithm whiteboarding sessions, but testing other aspects such as data modelling, general architecture, and coding style/ability are all high-signal.
Multiple days? Not a chance.
If you were paying 2x rates or real equity, ya I'd slog through a day long interview, but I bet you aren't.
What does your company have to offer that would compel me to spend 8 hours interviewing that another company doesn't?
Maybe they'll be only one company willing to pay then, maybe that will be the one with the one day interview :D
Something that's worked well for me in the past is to secure at least 1 good offer - compensation you feel comfortable with, recognizable brand, but still an offer you're willing to walk away from - and then give notice.
Then, after leaving, spend additional time (up to 4 weeks) interviewing with all the other companies you want to. Keep in mind that many companies offer a sign-on bonus, and using it to cover this in-between time is high-return, likely more so than buying a new car/vacation/entertainment system.
You can be upfront about this break in your interview loops - "I'm no longer working at company X, but I have a very competitive offer from company Y and considering several other ones." There's no guarantee you'll be able to keep all the offers you receive (many of them will explode), but you should have a steady pipeline.
Whenever you feel comfortable, you can exit the pipeline, and begin negotiation with the outstanding offers you have. Last I did this, I went onsite ~15 times among even more interview loops.
There aren't that many good companies to work for in any area (even in SV), to have 10 on sites simultaneously, and you might burn bridges for later [e.g. don't reapply before 1-2 years policy].
IMO: If there is that much interest for you, you need to charge more.
I have a hard time taking seriously a company that doesn't give me 25 days in EU. (better be with 25 sick days :D).
For me it isn't the PTO. Say I want to interview at 10 companies to see which is the best fit. That's 10 days of interviewing. If they are all 3 day interviews, that's an entire month.
I get tired of talking to people about nothing after an hour. If someone wants to bring 5 people for me to talk to about smalltalk and nothing really of substance, I won't do very well.
20 years ago, a friend who worked for a guy who would hire 10 people then after a few weeks, fire most of the ones leaving just the best. I live in an "at will" state. I guess most people just don't have the stomach for that sort of thing, so they try to make up for it with 3 days of doing nothing really relevant to the job.
Make a 1h test, NO fancy problems, just the basics. Think: summing some numbers, displaying some stuff on the console.
That doesn't substitute to the on site but it goes before to ensure a minimum level and some screening.
It's win-win for everyone. It's efficient and straightforward. On the top side, it's easier for the candidate to take 1h whenever he wants than to schedule a full phone call that will ruin half a day for both of you.
Every founder thinks their company is great. People who want jobs will happily reinforce that delusion to get the job. Some companies are better than others, but most of it is really boring stuff. I guarantee that everyone working at your company is there because they need a job.
It's not even about being attractive to juniors, seniors or mid level. It's just looking for desperate, even if you have a brand name.
Screw the rest, seriously, it's just not worth the trouble.
A couple of weeks back I saw a repo on Github. Preparing for an interview @ Google. It was a mile long. Never doing that.
(I am writing in a snarky way to convey a message)
1. If you're using recruiters, you're already losing. Especially if those are recruiting agencies that "hide" the name of the companies.
The cold emails are just ridiculously hideous.
2. Use as little hyped up words as you possibly can. You might change the world, but everyone else is saying the same thing and people are getting sensitive about it.
3. Impact - Emphasize what is the impact of the role. Why do you need my skills, Not just an engineer skills, why do you need me. If you don't need me I don't care what you need, post on LinkedIn for all I care.
4. The mail needs to come from the CTO with as many details as possible about the company. Not how much money you raised and from which VCs, everybody raised money and everybody as VCs behind them. I could care less. What are the technical challenges, what's the roadmap, what challenges are you facing that you need me to solve and help with.
5. Compensation - "Competitive salary" means nothing. I don't think it's relevant to me at all. You need to be specific about the compensation levels. If you wanna give a range, that's also fine. If your range stops at X and I am making X+50%, I know we are too far apart, we could save each other the trouble.
6. Interview - If the interview requires more than a single day, I don't care. If it requires whiteboard, I don't care, If it requires multiple processes and screens, I don't care.
It's all about managing friction. Just like acquiring a customer on Google or Facebook. If the process has too much friction, I don't want to go through it. I just don't. I'm happy where I am and it's not worth my trouble.
All of these may sound elitist, I get that. I really do. But if you want really senior engineers the targeting is different than people that just finished bootcamp or have 2-3 years of experience.