The company is investing a lot of time and effort in the interviewing process. The candidate has been preparing for weeks for an assessment that has nothing to do with their actual job, and is being assigned multiple take-home challenges that take 4-8 hours of their time, etc.
The company wants to feel free to shop around and spend as much time as they want to hire "the right candidate?" The candidate is entitled to the same, shopping around for "the right company."
The company wants to avoid a bidding war to get the candidate for the least amount of money they can get away with? The candidate wants a bidding war so they can get the most amount of money they can get away with.
The company asks the candidate what salary they are expecting. The candidate can simply ask what the range for the position is, since the company has that information.
The company spends the entire interview assessing the candidate, and maybe asks if they have any questions at the last minute? The candidate is entitled to know just as much about what they are potentially getting themselves into by accepting an offer as the company is by hiring a candidate.
etc.
The process is a 2-way negotiation between equal parties.
This is the only statement in your comment I take issue with. The company has access to all kinds of local, regional, and national salary data, as well as a holistic idea of the kind of candidates they're getting. If it's a large company, they have people whose only job is negotiation (especially around salary).
It's a decidedly unequal negotiation, that sometimes works in our favor (as in when we can get multiple offers to arrive at one time to bid up our pay).
The only reason it's as equal as it is is due to demand for hiring. Most other industries you take what you can get. Let's enjoy it while it lasts. Given the proliferation of "learn to code", outsourcing, insourcing, and other attempts to widen the number of qualified developers, I'm not sure how long this gravy train will continue to last.
Hopefully long enough for me to retire.
Take homes are usually pretty fun, I don't mind building yet another carwash react-express-postgres for someone. Leetcode is a whole different story. My ability to solve DP and graph questions deteriorates if I don't practice it constantly! Truly the biggest waste of time is being expected to be a solid leetcoder
As I see it there are three stages of truth that might exist. I am not a lawyer, what's a good way for the company to signal during these contexts?
After a candidate passed the final interview:
# other interviews still ongoing
# others passed too
# all parties waiting
As a pre-requisite, an active communication feedback loop is a base requirement, even for rejected resumes at the filter stage.
AKA accept our lowball offer before you realize how much you're worth
Fun fact, that when I’m looking for a job I will be arguing like you.
This is true at large organizations as well, it's not like there is some jigsaw puzzle waiting for the candidate that's a perfect fit.
This happens more frequently than people realise. Execs depend on, to state the obvious, a loyal next line leaders to get work done. And more often than not newly hired execs are under pressure to begin showing results in about 8 months or so. Hiring their loyalists gives them a very good chance of showing positive impact. Otherwise they need to wrangle with existing reports and peers to win their trust and loyalty which is a time consuming process.
I've seen this happen almost at all the places I've worked in
In Wales we call this “jobs for the boyos”.
> “ Not enough clarity about your role” - normal for growing startups.
Everybody claims this, even Bigcorp. I think it's an okay point but the more unclear, the more likely it is that there is a constant pressure about the role.
Now, being on the other side (hiring folks for a startup), I would argue that some of flags are a bit misleading. Examples: “Undue pressure to accept an offer letter” - interviews are not free, companies are investing eng time into evaluating each candidate and once they find great one, they really want them to join. They also do not want to be part of a bidding war, so it is natural to impose limits (some folks do go overboard). Recency bias also tells us that if you sit on the offer for a long time and continue interviewing, chances of you accepting the first one are going down. And something I learned only recently - offer stage is also part of the interview, it shows how 2 sides will be working together in the future.
“ Not enough clarity about your role” - normal for growing startups. I tell the candidates - here is what we do, pick something you like and run with it. Of course it is biased towards entrepreneurial types who thrive in uncertainty, but that is the state of many startups.
Mostly agree with other examples. One fun thought, they had 60 interviews. Assume some were 1 hour phone screens and some 1 + 5 hours virtual on sites. If we do 50:50, the industry spent 30 + 30 * 6 = 210 hours of eng time + debriefs, outreaches, negotiations, ... I think statistically, it is not in the interests of companies to participate in such marathons as ROI will be low.