If they say 1-4 hours then 1 hour usually means you aren't getting the job. 3-4 hours means you are still in the running, but still probably won't get the job.
I am with you on contract-to-hire. I get that companies are cautious because a bad hire can be tough to recover from, but the processes 99% of companies do are not conducive to good hires.
This. I hired a few times and rapidly learned not to promise the candidate a fixed amount of time. Why waste everyone's time doing more interviewing if the first interviewer finds out something that reveals the candidate is not a fit?
Because if they took the time to prepare for the interview and budget for an upper bound on the time range, then it is only professional and courteous of you to give them a full review.
If you reject them based on their performance during hour 1, and you don't even give them the chance to show you more about themselves during hours 2, 3, and 4, it sounds like (a) your hiring process is kind of dumb and you're way too focused on what you seem to think is hyper efficient time usage than on actually learning about a candidate, and (b) you come off as unprofessional.
It's a two-way street. Inviting someone in for a "1-4" hour block, then dismissing them after hour 1 makes it seem like you view it as if you're entitled to paw around the candidate like they are a cut of meat, assess them however you want, and not give them a fair chance to assess you.
> Because if they took the time to prepare for the interview...
That's very charitable of you.
I dont know if it was my inability to phone screen properly, my inadequate job posting, my desperation to hire at the salary my boss allowed me, or my optimism, but I had far too many candidates that didn't pass even the above low bar. I don't even want to talk about the candidates that didn't make it through the phone screen.
If it matters, the timeframe wasn't 1-4 hours, but rather 1-2, and the position was junior.
I am not able to understand which parts of your comment are sarcastic and which aren't.
Are you saying you assume candidates did not prepare? If so, then I think you clearly have a problem with how you perceive candidates and you should work on that instead of dismissing candidates so quickly and believing it's their fault.
Even a candidate who performs badly in the interview may have spent a ton of time preparing. They may just honestly not be the right choice for the role, due to technical mismatch, even though they have an excellent work ethic, they studied, they had their friend come over and role play interview questions, they couldn't sleep the night before worrying if the cheap suit they borrowed from their uncle is going to make them look bad, etc. etc.
You should basically view literally every candidate as a person who is trying their best. If that turns out to be false, oh well -- it's not your business to care about forming opinions about candidates who you think weren't giving their best. Just assume they were, that it didn't work out, and move on.
Again, I may not be reading your comment right. But if you feel it's "charitable" to assume any given candidate sitting in front of you studied hard, cares about the job, works hard, and really wants to present themselves well, that's just nuts.
When I was on the company side of it we did 4 interviews. If The first two said no there was no point in wasting the time on the second two, but #1 would always be the 'handler' for the process so if his was a no and he got the signal from #2 that it was also a no he would tell the candidate that the process was over for today. If either voted yes it went to #3. You had to get 3/4 to continue to the offer phase.
I am with you on contract-to-hire. I get that companies are cautious because a bad hire can be tough to recover from, but the processes 99% of companies do are not conducive to good hires.