If it's happening, it's a very different problem (no less real of a problem, though) and process fixes at this stage wouldn't help.
Also, this interview performance should have been enough to disqualify this candidate for the role he envisioned, too. If only because, if he was actually intending on applying to be a director of engineering, the right answer to question 3 is something like "I think there's been some sort of mistake."
And, they almost certainly are setting quotas because they're currently being sued by one of their own recruiters over their quota policy.
>Also, this interview performance should have been enough to disqualify this candidate
They neither qualify him nor disqualify him. Correctly or near correctly answered trivia questions tell you almost nothing about a candidate other than that they're probably a software engineer of some kind.
Please read the entire sentence you quoted halfway - by "interview performance" I don't mean the correctness of the answers, I mean his a) expectation that UNIX trivia quizzes are a normal part of a director-level interview (and that it's not more likely that there was a miscommunication in scheduling) and b) attitude.
This. I hate trivia, and trivia questions. You can get a book or find a website to bone up on trivia questions if that's your thing. However, it says nothing about whether you actually know anything about working with computers every day.
No, that's a pretty insulting and disturbingly koolaid flavored presumption.
This conversation makes sense to me because of the number of people who have commented that they ended up being unwittingly considered for position that they did not apply for and did not actually even necessarily want. There's at least two in the comments section here and I know two more personally (one of whom is a very talented director of HR, ironically enough).
I actually even said this to that director of engineering's comment you mentioned two years ago.
He neglected to respond.