Comprehensive interview panels are interesting, back in 2018, I found myself in an intriguing position while working for an e-commerce company: I had the responsibility of hiring a junior software developer for my Cloud Team.
This experience left a lasting impression on me, not only because of the individual I eventually hired but also because of the interview process itself, which was both unique and thought-provoking.
The Unconventional Interview Process
The recruitment process began with an interview panel consisting of 8 to 11 people from different departments, a format that struck me as unusual.
In my career, I had rarely encountered such a large panel, and the only comparable experience I had was nearly eight years prior, at a CDN company.
Back then, I had to deliver a presentation on DNS (Domain Name System) as part of my interview process. It was a challenging experience, but I managed to navigate it successfully.
However, this situation was different—it wasn’t about me, but about a young, aspiring software developer who had to face a large and diverse panel.
The candidate, a young individual, appeared slightly nervous, which was understandable given the circumstances. However, what stood out was his confidence and composure as he responded to the questions posed by the panel.
He not only answered all the questions correctly but also demonstrated his coding skills and explained his thought process behind the solutions he provided. Remarkably, he even corrected a senior engineer’s response respectfully—a bold move that showed both his competence and his ability to communicate effectively.
A Question of Process
Despite the candidate’s performance, I found myself questioning the necessity and effectiveness of such a comprehensive interview process.
I inquired why the interview was conducted in this manner, and someone explained that the purpose was to allow several teams to evaluate candidates simultaneously, helping to determine who would be the best fit for which team. While the explanation made sense from a logistical standpoint, I couldn’t shake the feeling that putting someone through such a rigorous process might be overkill, particularly for a young person just starting their career.
Interviewing can be an intimidating experience, even when facing just two or three people. Imagine what it must be like for a candidate, especially a junior one, to be questioned by 8 to 11 people at once.
The sheer number of interviewers, combined with the diversity of perspectives and expectations, can create an overwhelming atmosphere. Despite these challenges, the young developer held his ground, answering questions confidently and demonstrating his technical acumen without breaking a sweat. It was a testament to his potential, but also a reminder of the psychological toll such an interview format could take on candidates.
The Team Pitches
After the candidate had answered the panel’s questions, it was time for each team to pitch themselves. Some teams asked follow-up questions, while others simply passed on the opportunity. When it was my turn to speak, I chose a different approach.
The stress the candidate was under but also praised him for handling the situation with grace and confidence. I then made my pitch, highlighting how his Java skills and infrastructure knowledge would be invaluable to my Cloud Team.
I emphasized the opportunities for growth and learning that he would have on our team, and assured him that if he chose to join us, I would personally ensure his development into a respected senior engineer.
My pitch wasn’t just about the technical aspects of the role; it was about offering mentorship, support, and a clear path for career progression. I wanted him to know that we weren’t just looking for a developer to fill a role—we were looking for someone to invest in, someone we could help grow into a key player within the company.
The Final Decision
Two days later, I received an email from HR informing me that the candidate had chosen to join my team. They also asked if my team would be willing to conduct another round of interviews, to which I agreed.
I personally reached out to the candidate to explain the purpose of the additional interviews and to assure him that the team and I were fully behind him.
He completed the additional interviews successfully, although a few gaps in his knowledge were identified. These gaps weren’t a deal-breaker for me; they were areas for development that we could work on together. I extended a job offer, which he accepted, and he officially joined the team.
Mentorship and Growth
Over the years, the young developer grew into his role, consistently asking questions, seeking feedback, and striving to improve. Some senior engineers occasionally expressed concerns about his relative inexperience and the mistakes he made, but I always reminded them—and him—that mistakes are an inevitable part of the learning process. After all, who among us hasn’t made mistakes when starting out in our careers?
By 2022, just four years after joining the company, he reached out to inform me that he had achieved Level 3, a senior engineering level within the company. He thanked me for believing in him and giving him the opportunity to grow. His success was a source of great pride for me, not just because I had a hand in his development, but because he had proven himself through his own hard work and dedication.
This experience reinforced my belief that sometimes, all people need is a chance. They do the heavy lifting themselves—putting in the effort, learning from their mistakes, and continuously improving. As leaders, our role is to guide them, provide the necessary support, and create an environment where they can thrive.
The Merits and Drawbacks of Comprehensive Interview Panels
Reflecting on this experience, it’s clear that comprehensive interview panels have both merits and drawbacks. On the one hand, they allow multiple teams to assess candidates simultaneously, which can streamline the hiring process, especially in large organizations. This approach ensures that the candidate is evaluated from different perspectives, covering a broad range of skills and attributes. It can also help identify the best team fit, which is crucial for long-term success.
Moreover, comprehensive panels can reveal how a candidate performs under pressure, which is often indicative of how they might handle high-stress situations on the job. The ability to maintain composure, think critically, and communicate effectively in such scenarios is a valuable trait, particularly in fast-paced and dynamic environments like software development.
On the other hand, the drawbacks of this approach are equally significant. The sheer size of the panel can be overwhelming for candidates, especially those who are less experienced. It can create an intimidating environment that might not bring out the best in the candidate, particularly if they are prone to anxiety in high-pressure situations. Additionally, the diversity of opinions among a large panel can lead to conflicting feedback, making it difficult to arrive at a consensus on the candidate’s suitability.
Furthermore, the comprehensive interview panels process can be time-consuming and resource-intensive. Coordinating schedules for a large group of interviewers, preparing for the interview, and conducting the evaluation can all take considerable time and effort. This could be seen as inefficient, particularly if the same outcome could be achieved with a smaller, more focused panel.
Balancing Rigor with Empathy
So, what’s the solution? I believe it’s about finding a balance between rigor and empathy in the interview process. It’s important to thoroughly assess candidates, particularly for roles that require a high level of technical expertise and the ability to work across teams. However, it’s equally important to create an environment where candidates feel comfortable and supported, allowing them to showcase their true abilities.
One approach could be to break down the interview process into multiple stages, with smaller panels at each stage. This would allow for a comprehensive assessment without overwhelming the candidate. For instance, the first stage could focus on technical skills, with a panel of engineers. The second stage could assess cultural fit, with representatives from different departments, but in smaller groups. By spreading out the interviews and reducing the number of people involved in each stage, candidates might feel less pressured and more able to perform at their best.
Another approach could be to provide candidates with clear expectations and support throughout the comprehensive interview panels. In my case, reaching out to the candidate before the second round of interviews to explain the process and offer reassurance made a significant difference. Providing candidates with a roadmap of what to expect, along with the opportunity to ask questions, can help alleviate some of the stress associated with comprehensive panels.
Conclusion: Leadership and Mentorship in the Hiring Process
In conclusion, my experience hiring a junior software developer for my Cloud Team was a learning moment for me as much as it was for the candidate. It highlighted the complexities and challenges of comprehensive interview panels, but also the potential they hold for identifying talent and assessing fit across multiple teams.
Ultimately, the success of any interview process depends on more than just the structure and format; it’s also about the attitude and approach of the interviewers. As leaders, we must not only evaluate candidates but also guide and support them throughout the process. This means being mindful of the pressures they face, offering constructive feedback, and creating an environment where they can succeed.
The young developer I hired in 2018 is a testament to the power of giving someone a chance, believing in their potential, and providing the right guidance and mentorship. His journey from a junior developer to a senior engineer is a reminder that with the right support, people can achieve remarkable things. As leaders, it’s our responsibility to create the conditions for that success and to believe in the potential of those we bring into our teams.
So, what are my thoughts on comprehensive interview panels with multiple teams? They can be valuable, but they must be approached with care. It’s about striking the right balance between thorough evaluation and creating a supportive environment. When done right, comprehensive interview panels can be an effective tool for identifying talent and building strong, capable teams. But they should always be conducted with empathy, respect, and a focus on the long-term development of the candidates.