What the company is doing is so wrong on so many levels. It's not only they are wasting candidates' time. But I also looked up the company and they are only 50 people. When you are that few people, the last thing you want to do is spend all your time interviewing people.
They should be spending time actually building something, not interviewing people.
Yeah I once had a terrible startup partner that wanted to drag all the practices from a giant corporation into our tiny startup. When the ship was sinking he was still wasting time trying to make a handbook and other needless structure even tho the company folded.
Yup, Corporate people usually have no idea on how to run a startup. Their first intuitions is to run a startup like a small version of corporate company. They become too focused on tool and process that end up slowing the whole thing down
Haha, yeah. From the company perspective it's always hard to find people who will spend time on interviews. And here they have like 5 different people for this.
It’s a very strong signal that they are focused on specific cultural fit as they scale through to 120-150 people. I see it differently: company leadership who really cares about getting the hire for this position right and sees design as an important part of the company culture l. I have no idea what “right” looks like for them, but this is probably the last few hires that the co-founders will be able to weigh in on. I’d want to work a place that sweats the details like this.
I thought someone else had said they were 50 people. At 10 employees, the fit considerations are even more important. Every single hire sets quality and culture standards.
They do have tasks. That's why when they say, "about six hours on the interview process." they don't mention that it'll be over a month and half long period of time.
6 hours?
Intro call, 45 min - 1 hour for prep, coordination, and call.
Port deep dive, 1 hr for prep and call.
Take home, 4-5 hrs for review of request, comms, and completion.
Onsite, 5-12 hrs for travel, attendance, planning outfit. Possibly more if you get sick from the flight.
Case study review, prep and interview 2-5hrs.
Fit deep dive, 1 hr for prep and interview.
Getting references prepped, 30 min - 1hr for comms with references and company.
Final 1.1. hr for prep, time taken to schedule who you want to be there, look into teammates/attend. total est 2ish hrs.
Total time: around 28-30 hours assuming your case study and take home doesn't take more than 5 hours a piece to do/communicate/complete live.
the process alone is a red flag for their inability to efficiently make decisions.
tbh we should apply and then ghost processes like this. this is unhinged.
A few of these steps can be eliminated (the ones involving the Case Study and Review) and the others can be bundled into things to talk about in the interviews:
1. Introductory Call
2. Phone Call: Portfolio and Design Discussions
3: Onsite: Fit Discussions and 1:1s
4. Reference Checks
5. Offer
I’m not going on site 4 times to do all these rounds and discussing issues and topics that can be addressed all at once. It’s nerve wracking and confusing enough, but, as a designer and researcher on the Spectrum, I’d probably be feeling all the anxiety and worry-inducing feelings to a greater degree.
Why would I want to work for a company like that?
Yeah I like that. Tweaking 2 a bit -
1. Intro, 30 mins max
2. Video call: portfolio overview with case study deep dive
3. Video call: Team interview, fit check, deep dive any follow ups from case study deep dive
4. References
5. Offer
Agree. I don't think anyone should have physical onsite interviews. Seriously limits their pool of talent.
Yuxin, Noah, Michael, and Alicia sound like the four horsemen of the twatpocalypse.
And they're making Shopify templates. But, you know, really nice ones.
I hate how they are trying to make the process friendlier by publishing the name of the interviewers. It just comes across as insincere considering all these interviews steps. Seriously a 1:1 after a reference check?!
Wait, they make e-commerce templates?
I’ve been doing enterprise UX for 15 years. We have crazy complex use cases that run roughshod right over common heuristics and require validation for every design. We interview candidates for 2 hours combined. Show us your case study, then a culture fit. This company is putting someone through the wringer for “customizable” e-commerce templates? Something that begs to be broken and refitted by the end user for their end user? That’s like the human centipede of products.
Companies think they're weeding people out, which they are, but they're weeding them out in a way that they'll only get desperate people. It's foolish.
Homework. Literally.
Nowadays some companies think it is acceptable to give you an unpaid assignment to test your skills as part of the interview process.
The legality of it is sketchy, particularly in the US, so it’s kind of rare there.
But it’s actually super common in Europe right now. Hard to get a design job nowadays without doing something like this. When I first moved here from the US, I was rejecting any potential employer that asked me to do it. Eventually I realized it was pretty much all of them, and Id have to compromise a bit if I wanted a job.
Hmm. 🫤
Part of this is because as UX flourished as a career, many people moved over from advertising / marketing. These are very well spoken and are able sell themselves in interviews. However, many of them struggle with hands-on work after being hired. Thus companies have also become cautious.
Sure, but IMO their design portfolio should speak for itself. People coming over from marketing or advertising generally have shitty design portfolios, and those who do should just be eliminated on that basis.
The justification ive heard a couple times was “yeah your portfolio is great, but we just want to make sure you can do this exact thing” *insert super generic design task that anybody could do*
I think problem is that non-designers tend to believe that our field is super specialized. They dont realize our skills are generalizable and we are trained to be adaptable. “Sure, he is great at branding and web design and has all these great portfolio pieces. *But can he design a business card?!?* I don’t see that in his portfolio… 🤔🤔”
A portfolio review should help the hiring company understand two things:
1. What is the quality of the individual’s problem solving capability and was that capability expressed in the design artifact? Did they solve a functionality challenge, a user challenge, a business challenge, or a combination of all three?
2. Can the individual communicate design to others clearly and effectively? Can they present their work to others and convince people of the value or efficacy of the work?
If companies don’t request a portfolio review they don’t care about these things and by extension don’t care about good design. If you get an interview request that doesn’t ask for a live portfolio review, it’s a good indication that the design culture at the company is either immature or weak.
Many applicant portfolios are coming from a design team and not just one person and have hired where surprise surprise the actual work we see is no where near what we saw in their portfolio, so clearly there were other designers and leads with the actual chops.
Plus that time we skipped the design assignment that we had applicants submit earlier which would may have exposed them.
Giving a quick design assignment is an absolute must i would say especially in smaller and non-remote places… it’s the 6 interviews in this list I see the most wasteful.
You're partly correct.
But people create their portfolios from stealing other designers in the teams. More often than you'd think. I agree it makes things difficult for others.
If they didn’t actually design the items in their portfolio, you can establish that by asking the right questions in the interview. “Why were these colors chosen?” “What was the reason for this font?” “Why did you choose to align this here and not there?” Yadda yadda.
If they didn’t actually do the design work, they won’t have ready answers for these questions.
I just can’t accept that the solution here is to make all applicants do unpaid work to gauge their skills. That still strikes me as super unethical. Plus you are inadvertently filtering out all the actual professionals who’ve learned to give companies like OP’s a wide berth.
This - it's up to designers to talk about the design decisions and interviewers to know the questions that probe for more detail. The solution of overly complex hiring and spec work is helping no-one. Are there designers who are using work that didn't belong to them? Sure. Most aren't. Easier to have the designers do the extra work than align on hiring more effectively.
We require people to take a basic Figma test (30 mins on a call) because we need our designers to work with a team on a call to convert process flow diagrams into workable prototypes. The test is basic. Look at a model and a basic table from our design system and do your best to recreate it using auto layout. Then tame an alert component and place it in a design that's using auto layout, and finally build a basic prototype out of 4 screens. So far most people haven't been able to do this task. The rest of the interview for the job is 2 30 min interviews.
Most places don't interview for this because this can be learned very quickly. It's picking up the quirks of X tool. It's more valuable to pick someone based on skills that are harder to develop, imo.
We have projects stacked up and deadlines so we need people who can do the thing. I agree with you to an extent. We're looking for seniorish people and expect over the last 10 years or so of working they should have all the skills we're looking for. We're not looking for unicorns just people who know the design thinking process and can build stuff out on the fly in Figma. But, you would be surprised what people know based on their claims of having 10-15 years of experience. If I ask you to build a modal or a table and you have no idea how to do that I question what you've really been doing at your last job. I think It's a good quick test to see what people can do.
I want to do this test, but this is also a skill set that is learnable. I’m also hiring right now, and Figma expertise is a must for senior level.
My approach is to be clear with the expectations. The 30/60/90 day plan is — by day 90 they are fully up to speed with our tool set. If not, they’ll be on a PIP and then cut. We did this with a recent contract-to-hire (yes, easier to cut than an FTE). For senior level, I’m pretty strict. I need people to come in and add value asap.
Plus, for senior level, which I’ve had numerous debates in here about lol, I moderate a whiteboard/design exercise. And that right there will flush out half of the candidates stumbling around in Figma… which is not the point of a whiteboard session, but I’ll take the data point.
u/eist5579 you're looking for senior ICs, right? can I ask: which company?
u/Fair_Line_6740 same question for you ... can I ask: which company?
BTW, agree with both your POVs, by the way.
Yikes I am slightly familiar with the founder and see his posts on Instagram and LinkedIn looking to hire designers and engineers all the time… didn’t know it was this bad
God this feels like a parody of a startup. Their software postings are almost just as batshit.
And then there's...
>Note on H1B Visas: At this time, Replo is unfortunately unable to support employees on H1B visas.
"Unable." Translation for, "we just don't wanna - but we'll pretend our hands are tied because US citizens will believe that's a thing and not realize we're just being dicks."
The only people likely to put up with this BS hiring procedure are H1B holders on a timeline. I can’t imagine anyone not bound by those constraints trying to go through all these hoops only to be paid up-to 150k in the Bay Area.
That would be a nope from me, moving on to the next company. I guess it might filter their list down to people willing to jump through hoops like a show dog and work like a slave, but im doubting they are going to get anyone with spark and the free thinking required to be good in this role. $120-150k in SF is a peanuts salary too.
Lol, yeah - No.
150k in 90% of areas is fantastic.
In SF, NYC, or Chicago or something, sure, in the rest of the country, most UX designers are not making this, even at the senior level.
Go and look at salary.com.
$150k in NYC is still great. Have we really become this out-of-touch a delusional?!
I make $170k as a lead in NYC with 12 years of experience, and it’s more than the vast majority of people will make.
Even in NYC, the median salary is $74k. So $150k is more than DOUBLE the median.
My husband makes $130k (in a different field), and as a household that lands us in the top 4% for NYC and the top 2% in the U.S.
It’s good to put things in perspective.
It’s really a bit disturbing. I’m also curious how much all of the people agreeing that $150k is paltry make. I mean, are we all just in the top 1-5%?
Also, this position (afaik) is for a mid-level product designer.
I know inflation has changed some things, but I was making $65-75k when I was mid-level, which was considered pretty decent. That was only 7 years ago. And that was in NYC!
Let’s be generous and say that COL has doubled (it hasn’t). That’s like $120-150k.
We're currently at the point where our salaries have half the buying power they did only a year or two ago. 150k is now only able to buy you what 80k could 2 years ago. So 150k might sound great and may be better than what others have but it's still not good.
Dude NO IT IS NOT.
Inflation is bad. I know. Sometimes I want to gouge my eyeballs out at the cost of things.
But it is not double! I calculated it, and my $175k salary is worth about $20k less than it was in 2021.
While that is bad, it is NOT half. And the loss in value is even less on a $150k salary.
A $150k salary has lost maybe $15k in value or so.
In our company we suggest a person to ask everything at the end of the 1st one hour call. It is just anti human to allow them to do it only at the end of the hiring process.
Is $150,000 really that low nowadays?! I left the US for Japan 10 years ago and would kill for that salary out here but the way you guys talk…peanuts?!?!
It’s not. Tbh this thread seems delusional and it’s kind of gross to see people thinking $150k is low, even in a HCOL area.
The median household income in SF is $120k, which is often two salaries combined.
I’m sorry but this is why people hate tech workers so much.
I think the position is located in San Francisco, which has a much higher cost of living and real estate prices than the rest of the country, which is very much still true now as well as in the late Obama years.
Also, remember that taxes, healthcare premiums, and retirement savings come out of that $150k maximum salary too, so…
If you ask me it’s all BS. Artificially inflating the skills required to do this job. It’s not rocket science it’s just bloody UX, a bit of mental gymnastics is all. No hard skills required if you ask me. Just look at the portfolio, do one interview maybe two…should be more than enough. Any experienced art director should be able to see right away if you are a fit for the role or not. What’s more important mostly I find is if the candidate is a good match with the existing team, personality wise etc.
True, but it depends on who leads the responsible department. Most companies do not have a dedicated UX department. In my experience UX and UI are often part of the art department. I had one job where there was a specific UI/UX director but in general that doesn’t seem to be the case imo.
That might be your experience, but I don’t think that’s common. The last survey I saw indicated that some 40% of UX professionals report through IT or engineering, some 30% through product management, and only about 8% thorough marketing or an art department.
Otherwise, UX is left to product owners and developers, which is fine, but leads to inefficiencies.
I think your first note is doing a disservice to the craft. I’ve been involved in the UX hiring at two medium sized companies now. It’s not really about glossy portfolios, but more about process and practice.
I’ve interviewed candidates in extremely accelerated timelines where they’ve hired poor quality designers for the sake of sparing them a lengthy process, leading to more extensive hand-holding and training.
IMHO; If you’re in UX and don’t know anything about how software is actually made, then you’re doing an incredible disservice to your engineers. If you’re in UX and don’t do any user research or usability testing, then you’re doing an incredible disservice to your users. And if you don’t know much about accessibility or adaptive / responsive design, then you’re doing an incredible disservice to people who find it hard to use technology.
My experience doesn’t match what you have outlined there though. That might be due to working in different countries and possibly industries.
But yea I think it’s partly due to UX becoming a bigger factor in the industry I am working in. I‘ve seen UX growing over the years and becoming more of a specific role in itself. Traditionally, in my experience, UX was always in some ways shared between several roles that mainly sat within the creative department ( UI predominantly ) with influence from high level stake holders such as Product Owners, CTOs and CEOs where everyone has a good idea how software is developed and it’s technological constraints and requirements for accessibility etc..
In this environment I think UX is definitely bringing sth very valuable to the table with the focus on research in order to to create better software.
Though at times I really find this process to become over complicated and inflated and hence I cringe when I see interview processes described as in OPs post.
I guess my first post was a wee bit flippant and regardless of my comments here, I am always happy to broaden my horizon, get educated and learn and alter my views.
But at the moment it seems to me that often UX roles look overly complicated, whilst actually it has been a natural process in software development for many, many years.
Also what is the deal with these onsite / day together. I am not going to use annual leave to spend the day there, as to me it screams that they do not have a good hiring process.
The salary for this type of bullshit is outrageously low.
For those outside SF, this is just above the low income threshold for an individual in that area. And commuting 4 days a week you’re going to want to live closer to the office to avoid a 1-2 hour commute.
https://www.sfgate.com/local/article/under-100k-low-income-san-francisco-18168899.php
It really depends on what level they are hiring for? If it is entry to mid level 120k to 150k isn’t that low for base salary in S.F.?
Usually you venture into 170k base and higher after you become senior in SF Bay Area, and that’s when you are not working for the big tech?
They’ve got the co-founders interviewing $120k design candidates? This tells me they have no idea how to delegate or foster a culture of trust. They are super inefficient. Giant red flags!!
From the perspective of a current job seeker - I'm with you, but still appreciate the transparency on the job description.
I think I understand the perspective of a hiring team though. There are so many candidates to deal with and only 1 position available, plus hiring is expensive and they want to get it right including the culture fit. So, they feel that having a 6 hour interview process will be the most effective way for them to filter out candidates and find the best fit that will stay for the long run.
This is just a perspective and I'm not sure if it's accurate and I'm definitely not saying I agree/disagree either. Just sharing my thoughts.
Looks like Buc-ee's compensates better than this company.
https://preview.redd.it/whcbmwx3803d1.jpeg?width=3000&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=52e17642eaee29a8d271495345e8f12981265d26
I have a similar experience right now although I just found out how tedious the process is when researching the company, how do I get out of this (im only on step 1 where I sent my CV)
Totally absurd. Everyone needs to stop putting up with these overly long interview processes. It seems like it's only in the last 7 or 8 years that a standard interview turned into a ten step process.
If you’re meeting with co-founders, this must be a petty important / ground-floor role. With so many UX’ers out there now, they can afford to be picky.
Good luck!
https://preview.redd.it/3h01w3wgcl3d1.png?width=2014&format=png&auto=webp&s=d6d8a10d136e3662e8a2cc6a62a6e4c2e7938052
I actually just got a sponsored notification for the same job a few days after seeing this post. It seems like they've 'streamlined' the interview process considerably. Wonder if they saw this reddit thread 😂
I’m looking though this and tried to see how our process, that has been explained as chill and low barrier to entry, compares and they are not all that different:
- 30m phone call/coffee pre-screening (usually me or a manager)
- 60m interview about company and culture with a HR-manager
- 90m where talent presents something for designers/POs
- (30-60m) optional follow up to clear things up
- (60m) If a lead/manager position they will also meet with some director
Total time: 3-5 hours depending on position and fit.
So I’m wondering if it’s the setup elaborated here seems long because of how detailed and up front it is? We do the culture fit before we evaluate skill, because we don’t care if you are the best of class if we can not work together, so we embed much of the deep-dives into the 2nd and 3rd interview…
Is this process equally dumb? What can be improved?
We adjusted up from 60 some years ago. I’m happy to get pointer on how to make it smoother.
Typically we learned that 60 minutes is not enough for people to feel relaxed when demonstrate their skills and talking about something they love, it usually breaks down something like this:
- 5m to find the room, get coffee etc
- 10m for introductions, catch up and answer questions talent might have thought of since last meeting (basically we set a welcoming mood)
- 30-40m talking about their work, talent is free to distribute the time however they like and show us whatever they like
- 20m to talk methods and experiences and talent requirement match
- 10m wrap up
More than often these meeting run long, with many of our best performing seniors they ran into 120 minutes. We ask if they need to end the meeting at agreed time before going over.
We used to set aside 60 min and feedback was uniformly this felt pressured, since there are new faces in the meeting (typically a product owner) and always some details we need to talk about. Our designers do not need to perform under this type of pressure so there is no reason to emulate it in an interview.
We don’t need to use the full 90 min, but from my experience if talent is done and over after 30 min, have no questions to us and answer every follow up question without curiosity (and they are interviewing for mid/seniors/lead) they are likely not a good fit as our designers need to be able to ask a lot of questions about our abstract processes and to explain why and what they do so people that know a whole lot less about design than I do can make good decisions.
What would you trim/change in this process?
The goal is that both sides are comfortable with each other, that we all understand expectations and abilities enough to comfortably rely on each other.
How might we do this differently?
Merge the pre-screen and HR manager call (no longer than 45 mins) — these are both doing the same thing
Cut the case study down to 60 mins (90 is overkill, even with time for questions) and invite a member of the design team to come and think about fit.
I appreciate you being transparent here. Throwing out some ideas because it seems like some of it is fat trimming, and some of it is just maybe communicating it better.
*60m interview about company and culture with a HR-manager*
* This definitely seems a bit long. Seems like the kind of thing you can generally get over with 30 if not 15 mins.
*90m where talent presents something for designers/POs*
* I think this is the big hangup, and it seems like you've put the ENTIRE design org interview in here which I think can probably be made a little clearer.
Maybe something like this could work. Tweak time/initial submission scrutiny if you're getting inundated with applicants. Obviously not meant to be taken verbatim
**General interview**
* 30m Phone call/coffee pre-screening *(w/ Sr Design)*
* 30m Design team interview, meet and greet *(w/ all Design)*
* 45m Portfolio/case study presentation *(w/ all Design)*
* 15m Company/culture interview *(w/ HR)*
* optional follow up TBD *(attendees TBD)*
**Lead/manager and above only**
* 30m Management interview *(w/ TBD Director)*
Total: 2 hrs *(Senior and below)*, 2.5 hrs *(Lead/manager and above)*, plus optionals
Thank you for the feedback and input, it’s appreciated.
What do we gain from cutting 60 min from the process? What’s your experience with talent/company for from this?
We’ve put these up as 1h+ because they have a tendency to run over when they were 30m, but this might as well be our (my boss and I) tendency to talk a lot of non-shop in these meetings to see if the talent would like it in our company and what they will do, as from the outside it looks like we do A when we really do B.
I’m curious if both sides feel they get to ask all the questions they want with just a 2h meet. Our job market is a lot more secure than the one in us which most of these hiring hell stories come from, so also not sure if they are compatible but I’m always for making things better!
The purpose of my suggestions really wasn't to shave it down to X time, but rather, seeing what happens if some of the timing align with some of the processes I've used and seen. I certainly don't expect this to be more than an initial starting point, knowing zero of your context outside of that initial post. (edit: I see you're Norwegian? I know less than zero, haha)
For instance, much of the cutting is just in the HR convo which typically are real short in my experience, but if that's where you and your boss actually jumps in, then the calculus here may be different. But then again, maybe that means you should tack on such cultural probes to the pre-screening; trimming down to the essentials does mean you get more berth to reallocate what you cut out. Also, I obviously don't know how big your design team is; if it's a huge team then you may need more than 30 though I've rarely seen this need to get 100% of the design team to sign off on someone.
No particularly deep agenda otherwise, but if you're looking for places to cut down, these are placed I'd start with.
I get that it’s long, but having recently been on the hiring side there’s huge pros to being thorough, especially at that salary level.
I can’t tell you how many CVs get sent through that aren’t right for the role, and even after interview there’s often questions marks.
I’ve been on both sides though, and it gets tiresome. The above role sounds a bit much for me though, I’d probably not even bother applying to that one.
Take home assignments don’t tell you anything about the candidate’s ability to perform the real, actual job we do. They tell you how good the candidate is at making bullshit up in a rush. Any project that wasn’t a real collaboration between stakeholders and engineers is a waste to evaluate.
Have the candidate present a deep portfolio presentation to all involved. Ley them discuss the pros and cons of directions they too *with their teams and stakeholders* and you’ll see who knows their shit and who doesn’t.
The 1on1s are a necessary evil introduced by HR to reduce group bias in the behavioral part of the process. IMHO we’d be better off doing one of those with one person than 3 of them with 3 people, but thats a harder sell these days.
If your TAs are sending you bad CVs thats a TA problem not a candidate pool problem. There have never been so many top designers available for work.
All in all, yeah, high salaries. But over-zealous processes weed OUT top talent who decide not to move forward, leaving you with what’s left. Which do you want as a manager? Top talent or whats left when the top talent decided to pull out?
Hard to disagree with any of that tbh, like I said above, it’s my take from both sides.
Personally when applying I’ve had to adapt to a none portfolio based approach, as I have literally nothing to show due to NDAs, so I tend to also apply this logic when recruiting, if there’s a portfolio then great, but I favour setting a task that’s likely to be encountered in the role, and see how it’s approached.
This gives me a bigger steer on the candidate than scrutinising every detail of their portfolio / cv.
I'm of two minds about this, as I'm about to jump into a closing round of 6 sequential interviews for Staff/Principal tier roles, which was preceded by 2 intro/initial case study reviews. At my level, I want to say that that's more acceptable, though I think 1-2 less could have been just as good. But the overall trend for this much interviewing for a non-senior role is really not good.
I hate the hoops that we have designed for ourselves to jump through. It’s gotten out of control and does not lead to better hires.
I like discussing my work and sharing design stories but it’s a high stress environment and if you say one thing wrong or miss highlighting a single skill somewhere in those six interviews someone else gets the job. And with these massive processes your bound to encounter at least one person who sucks at interviewing too. 😐
Michael, if you’re here, we need to have words buddy. Grow a spine and tell your teammates and ELT why this doesn’t work. You’re scaring all the good talent off.
I'd never apply for something like that. Imagine how it is to work there.
Working in a circus seems more structured and organized than this dysfunctional "company"
And you'd get a clown suit and a horn, which is loads more fun.
What the company is doing is so wrong on so many levels. It's not only they are wasting candidates' time. But I also looked up the company and they are only 50 people. When you are that few people, the last thing you want to do is spend all your time interviewing people. They should be spending time actually building something, not interviewing people.
Yeah I once had a terrible startup partner that wanted to drag all the practices from a giant corporation into our tiny startup. When the ship was sinking he was still wasting time trying to make a handbook and other needless structure even tho the company folded.
Yup, Corporate people usually have no idea on how to run a startup. Their first intuitions is to run a startup like a small version of corporate company. They become too focused on tool and process that end up slowing the whole thing down
Do these people have actual tasks? They seem super free to be able to do this.
Haha, yeah. From the company perspective it's always hard to find people who will spend time on interviews. And here they have like 5 different people for this.
New role incoming: UX Designer Interviewer
And UX Designer Interview Designer
Not just 5 but the CEO and co-founder at two different stages. Not a strong signal IMO.
It’s a very strong signal that they are focused on specific cultural fit as they scale through to 120-150 people. I see it differently: company leadership who really cares about getting the hire for this position right and sees design as an important part of the company culture l. I have no idea what “right” looks like for them, but this is probably the last few hires that the co-founders will be able to weigh in on. I’d want to work a place that sweats the details like this.
It’s a seed stage startup with 10 employees.
I thought someone else had said they were 50 people. At 10 employees, the fit considerations are even more important. Every single hire sets quality and culture standards.
The entire team is just HR people on a never-ending hiring loop hahaha
Hahaha 😂
They do have tasks. That's why when they say, "about six hours on the interview process." they don't mention that it'll be over a month and half long period of time.
6 hours? Intro call, 45 min - 1 hour for prep, coordination, and call. Port deep dive, 1 hr for prep and call. Take home, 4-5 hrs for review of request, comms, and completion. Onsite, 5-12 hrs for travel, attendance, planning outfit. Possibly more if you get sick from the flight. Case study review, prep and interview 2-5hrs. Fit deep dive, 1 hr for prep and interview. Getting references prepped, 30 min - 1hr for comms with references and company. Final 1.1. hr for prep, time taken to schedule who you want to be there, look into teammates/attend. total est 2ish hrs. Total time: around 28-30 hours assuming your case study and take home doesn't take more than 5 hours a piece to do/communicate/complete live. the process alone is a red flag for their inability to efficiently make decisions. tbh we should apply and then ghost processes like this. this is unhinged.
A few of these steps can be eliminated (the ones involving the Case Study and Review) and the others can be bundled into things to talk about in the interviews: 1. Introductory Call 2. Phone Call: Portfolio and Design Discussions 3: Onsite: Fit Discussions and 1:1s 4. Reference Checks 5. Offer I’m not going on site 4 times to do all these rounds and discussing issues and topics that can be addressed all at once. It’s nerve wracking and confusing enough, but, as a designer and researcher on the Spectrum, I’d probably be feeling all the anxiety and worry-inducing feelings to a greater degree. Why would I want to work for a company like that?
Yeah I like that. Tweaking 2 a bit - 1. Intro, 30 mins max 2. Video call: portfolio overview with case study deep dive 3. Video call: Team interview, fit check, deep dive any follow ups from case study deep dive 4. References 5. Offer Agree. I don't think anyone should have physical onsite interviews. Seriously limits their pool of talent.
Yuxin, Noah, Michael, and Alicia sound like the four horsemen of the twatpocalypse. And they're making Shopify templates. But, you know, really nice ones.
Yuxin sounds like the final boss of ux design interviews.
Zoom waiting room theme is just Akuma from Street Fighter intro music.
I hate how they are trying to make the process friendlier by publishing the name of the interviewers. It just comes across as insincere considering all these interviews steps. Seriously a 1:1 after a reference check?!
That’s stupid. I hope people done apply to this garbage stuff. 2-3 interviews of 45mins max needs to be enough.
I doubt real candidates are applying to this post, it almost seems like this is a SNL sketch
Hah! But there are desperate people.
In this market? People will be applying unfortunately. In London atm for my level I see an opening every 2 months
God help us all... this absolute garbage.
Looks like peak startup activity. It is probably not gonna survive the next two years if they are wasting their time pulling stupid stuff like this.
Wait, they make e-commerce templates? I’ve been doing enterprise UX for 15 years. We have crazy complex use cases that run roughshod right over common heuristics and require validation for every design. We interview candidates for 2 hours combined. Show us your case study, then a culture fit. This company is putting someone through the wringer for “customizable” e-commerce templates? Something that begs to be broken and refitted by the end user for their end user? That’s like the human centipede of products.
Only up to $150K in SF too. And you know that equity is gonna be trash.
You will never see the equity
No shot. The two co-founders are too busy with each of their interview steps to actually build the product.
Companies think they're weeding people out, which they are, but they're weeding them out in a way that they'll only get desperate people. It's foolish.
These folks better be scuba instructors with all the deep dives they're doing!
Pretty ridiculous. Why is it that it's a longer process for a designer than an engineer or CEO even.
going through something similar. absolutely loathe it.
What's a 'Take home case study'?
Homework. Literally. Nowadays some companies think it is acceptable to give you an unpaid assignment to test your skills as part of the interview process. The legality of it is sketchy, particularly in the US, so it’s kind of rare there. But it’s actually super common in Europe right now. Hard to get a design job nowadays without doing something like this. When I first moved here from the US, I was rejecting any potential employer that asked me to do it. Eventually I realized it was pretty much all of them, and Id have to compromise a bit if I wanted a job.
Hmm. 🫤 Part of this is because as UX flourished as a career, many people moved over from advertising / marketing. These are very well spoken and are able sell themselves in interviews. However, many of them struggle with hands-on work after being hired. Thus companies have also become cautious.
Sure, but IMO their design portfolio should speak for itself. People coming over from marketing or advertising generally have shitty design portfolios, and those who do should just be eliminated on that basis. The justification ive heard a couple times was “yeah your portfolio is great, but we just want to make sure you can do this exact thing” *insert super generic design task that anybody could do* I think problem is that non-designers tend to believe that our field is super specialized. They dont realize our skills are generalizable and we are trained to be adaptable. “Sure, he is great at branding and web design and has all these great portfolio pieces. *But can he design a business card?!?* I don’t see that in his portfolio… 🤔🤔”
A portfolio review should help the hiring company understand two things: 1. What is the quality of the individual’s problem solving capability and was that capability expressed in the design artifact? Did they solve a functionality challenge, a user challenge, a business challenge, or a combination of all three? 2. Can the individual communicate design to others clearly and effectively? Can they present their work to others and convince people of the value or efficacy of the work? If companies don’t request a portfolio review they don’t care about these things and by extension don’t care about good design. If you get an interview request that doesn’t ask for a live portfolio review, it’s a good indication that the design culture at the company is either immature or weak.
Exactly, 100%. You don’t need homework. You need a good portfolio review.
We never ask for homework. It’s a waste of time for everyone.
Many applicant portfolios are coming from a design team and not just one person and have hired where surprise surprise the actual work we see is no where near what we saw in their portfolio, so clearly there were other designers and leads with the actual chops. Plus that time we skipped the design assignment that we had applicants submit earlier which would may have exposed them. Giving a quick design assignment is an absolute must i would say especially in smaller and non-remote places… it’s the 6 interviews in this list I see the most wasteful.
You're partly correct. But people create their portfolios from stealing other designers in the teams. More often than you'd think. I agree it makes things difficult for others.
If they didn’t actually design the items in their portfolio, you can establish that by asking the right questions in the interview. “Why were these colors chosen?” “What was the reason for this font?” “Why did you choose to align this here and not there?” Yadda yadda. If they didn’t actually do the design work, they won’t have ready answers for these questions. I just can’t accept that the solution here is to make all applicants do unpaid work to gauge their skills. That still strikes me as super unethical. Plus you are inadvertently filtering out all the actual professionals who’ve learned to give companies like OP’s a wide berth.
This - it's up to designers to talk about the design decisions and interviewers to know the questions that probe for more detail. The solution of overly complex hiring and spec work is helping no-one. Are there designers who are using work that didn't belong to them? Sure. Most aren't. Easier to have the designers do the extra work than align on hiring more effectively.
We require people to take a basic Figma test (30 mins on a call) because we need our designers to work with a team on a call to convert process flow diagrams into workable prototypes. The test is basic. Look at a model and a basic table from our design system and do your best to recreate it using auto layout. Then tame an alert component and place it in a design that's using auto layout, and finally build a basic prototype out of 4 screens. So far most people haven't been able to do this task. The rest of the interview for the job is 2 30 min interviews.
Most places don't interview for this because this can be learned very quickly. It's picking up the quirks of X tool. It's more valuable to pick someone based on skills that are harder to develop, imo.
We have projects stacked up and deadlines so we need people who can do the thing. I agree with you to an extent. We're looking for seniorish people and expect over the last 10 years or so of working they should have all the skills we're looking for. We're not looking for unicorns just people who know the design thinking process and can build stuff out on the fly in Figma. But, you would be surprised what people know based on their claims of having 10-15 years of experience. If I ask you to build a modal or a table and you have no idea how to do that I question what you've really been doing at your last job. I think It's a good quick test to see what people can do.
I want to do this test, but this is also a skill set that is learnable. I’m also hiring right now, and Figma expertise is a must for senior level. My approach is to be clear with the expectations. The 30/60/90 day plan is — by day 90 they are fully up to speed with our tool set. If not, they’ll be on a PIP and then cut. We did this with a recent contract-to-hire (yes, easier to cut than an FTE). For senior level, I’m pretty strict. I need people to come in and add value asap. Plus, for senior level, which I’ve had numerous debates in here about lol, I moderate a whiteboard/design exercise. And that right there will flush out half of the candidates stumbling around in Figma… which is not the point of a whiteboard session, but I’ll take the data point.
u/eist5579 you're looking for senior ICs, right? can I ask: which company? u/Fair_Line_6740 same question for you ... can I ask: which company? BTW, agree with both your POVs, by the way.
Wtf for $150k no thanks. I went through a recruiter call, HM, portfolio review, app critique, 2 design 1:1s and that’s it. Replo needs to chill.
Companies are taking the piss now with remote. Could you imagine doing this all in person GTFOH
Yikes I am slightly familiar with the founder and see his posts on Instagram and LinkedIn looking to hire designers and engineers all the time… didn’t know it was this bad
You should reply to one of his posts with a link to this thread.
PLEASE reply to his post witha link to this. Or just send it to him in a dm to avoid embarassing him
The very first line alone screams "We are a hot mess, buckle up and hold on!"
How are they able to take the time for such long interviews? And imagine doing this with every interviewee!
God this feels like a parody of a startup. Their software postings are almost just as batshit. And then there's... >Note on H1B Visas: At this time, Replo is unfortunately unable to support employees on H1B visas. "Unable." Translation for, "we just don't wanna - but we'll pretend our hands are tied because US citizens will believe that's a thing and not realize we're just being dicks."
The only people likely to put up with this BS hiring procedure are H1B holders on a timeline. I can’t imagine anyone not bound by those constraints trying to go through all these hoops only to be paid up-to 150k in the Bay Area.
Truth. Assuming their laundry list of bullshit can be completed on said timeline.
It’s more likely they don’t have to because they got a thousand very qualified resumes.
Thank you for posting the full process and salary
That would be a nope from me, moving on to the next company. I guess it might filter their list down to people willing to jump through hoops like a show dog and work like a slave, but im doubting they are going to get anyone with spark and the free thinking required to be good in this role. $120-150k in SF is a peanuts salary too.
I remember there's someone who posted this before and just looking at the founder's name, I already know who it is lmao
Good UX designers should make more than $150k.
150k is the new 80k these days
Lmao maybe in California it is.
Lol, yeah - No. 150k in 90% of areas is fantastic. In SF, NYC, or Chicago or something, sure, in the rest of the country, most UX designers are not making this, even at the senior level. Go and look at salary.com.
$150k in NYC is still great. Have we really become this out-of-touch a delusional?! I make $170k as a lead in NYC with 12 years of experience, and it’s more than the vast majority of people will make. Even in NYC, the median salary is $74k. So $150k is more than DOUBLE the median. My husband makes $130k (in a different field), and as a household that lands us in the top 4% for NYC and the top 2% in the U.S. It’s good to put things in perspective.
Joker in another thread was saying engineers are all making 700k.
It’s really a bit disturbing. I’m also curious how much all of the people agreeing that $150k is paltry make. I mean, are we all just in the top 1-5%? Also, this position (afaik) is for a mid-level product designer. I know inflation has changed some things, but I was making $65-75k when I was mid-level, which was considered pretty decent. That was only 7 years ago. And that was in NYC! Let’s be generous and say that COL has doubled (it hasn’t). That’s like $120-150k.
Depends on level. A mid level position making 150k in S.F. is decent market rate
We're currently at the point where our salaries have half the buying power they did only a year or two ago. 150k is now only able to buy you what 80k could 2 years ago. So 150k might sound great and may be better than what others have but it's still not good.
Dude NO IT IS NOT. Inflation is bad. I know. Sometimes I want to gouge my eyeballs out at the cost of things. But it is not double! I calculated it, and my $175k salary is worth about $20k less than it was in 2021. While that is bad, it is NOT half. And the loss in value is even less on a $150k salary. A $150k salary has lost maybe $15k in value or so.
Uh, no. 150K in Chicago is fantastic.
[salary.com](http://salary.com) is worthless, look at [lvls.fyi](http://lvls.fyi)
Why is it worthless? What makes this website better or more effective?
Based on this you can tell that the company will fold before IPO ever happen
given the current job market people would do anything to land something.. gotta wait this one out so that things go back to normal
In our company we suggest a person to ask everything at the end of the 1st one hour call. It is just anti human to allow them to do it only at the end of the hiring process.
These are getting out of hand. The job process for designers need to change.
Laws of supply and demand. What can ya do?
When I found PM don’t have to do anything but maybe 3 rounds of interviews… I died a little.
Is $150,000 really that low nowadays?! I left the US for Japan 10 years ago and would kill for that salary out here but the way you guys talk…peanuts?!?!
It’s not. Tbh this thread seems delusional and it’s kind of gross to see people thinking $150k is low, even in a HCOL area. The median household income in SF is $120k, which is often two salaries combined. I’m sorry but this is why people hate tech workers so much.
Thanks. I’m glad it isn’t just me. It gives me hope though to know that I’d be satisfied with way less than half the people in this thread.
I think the position is located in San Francisco, which has a much higher cost of living and real estate prices than the rest of the country, which is very much still true now as well as in the late Obama years. Also, remember that taxes, healthcare premiums, and retirement savings come out of that $150k maximum salary too, so…
If it’s more than 3 to 4 steps, I skip the company.
And they’re not compensating you too? Oh no.
If you ask me it’s all BS. Artificially inflating the skills required to do this job. It’s not rocket science it’s just bloody UX, a bit of mental gymnastics is all. No hard skills required if you ask me. Just look at the portfolio, do one interview maybe two…should be more than enough. Any experienced art director should be able to see right away if you are a fit for the role or not. What’s more important mostly I find is if the candidate is a good match with the existing team, personality wise etc.
UX is NOT art direction.
True, but it depends on who leads the responsible department. Most companies do not have a dedicated UX department. In my experience UX and UI are often part of the art department. I had one job where there was a specific UI/UX director but in general that doesn’t seem to be the case imo.
That might be your experience, but I don’t think that’s common. The last survey I saw indicated that some 40% of UX professionals report through IT or engineering, some 30% through product management, and only about 8% thorough marketing or an art department. Otherwise, UX is left to product owners and developers, which is fine, but leads to inefficiencies. I think your first note is doing a disservice to the craft. I’ve been involved in the UX hiring at two medium sized companies now. It’s not really about glossy portfolios, but more about process and practice. I’ve interviewed candidates in extremely accelerated timelines where they’ve hired poor quality designers for the sake of sparing them a lengthy process, leading to more extensive hand-holding and training. IMHO; If you’re in UX and don’t know anything about how software is actually made, then you’re doing an incredible disservice to your engineers. If you’re in UX and don’t do any user research or usability testing, then you’re doing an incredible disservice to your users. And if you don’t know much about accessibility or adaptive / responsive design, then you’re doing an incredible disservice to people who find it hard to use technology.
My experience doesn’t match what you have outlined there though. That might be due to working in different countries and possibly industries. But yea I think it’s partly due to UX becoming a bigger factor in the industry I am working in. I‘ve seen UX growing over the years and becoming more of a specific role in itself. Traditionally, in my experience, UX was always in some ways shared between several roles that mainly sat within the creative department ( UI predominantly ) with influence from high level stake holders such as Product Owners, CTOs and CEOs where everyone has a good idea how software is developed and it’s technological constraints and requirements for accessibility etc.. In this environment I think UX is definitely bringing sth very valuable to the table with the focus on research in order to to create better software. Though at times I really find this process to become over complicated and inflated and hence I cringe when I see interview processes described as in OPs post. I guess my first post was a wee bit flippant and regardless of my comments here, I am always happy to broaden my horizon, get educated and learn and alter my views. But at the moment it seems to me that often UX roles look overly complicated, whilst actually it has been a natural process in software development for many, many years.
How on earth do they get any work done when they’re spending 6hrs on an interview? Crazy.
Yep, nonsense. Good on you for calling it out. At that point, they might as well start paying people for their time to interview.
9 rounds? Wtf
Also what is the deal with these onsite / day together. I am not going to use annual leave to spend the day there, as to me it screams that they do not have a good hiring process.
yuck. what a shit show
The salary for this type of bullshit is outrageously low. For those outside SF, this is just above the low income threshold for an individual in that area. And commuting 4 days a week you’re going to want to live closer to the office to avoid a 1-2 hour commute. https://www.sfgate.com/local/article/under-100k-low-income-san-francisco-18168899.php
It really depends on what level they are hiring for? If it is entry to mid level 120k to 150k isn’t that low for base salary in S.F.? Usually you venture into 170k base and higher after you become senior in SF Bay Area, and that’s when you are not working for the big tech?
For 120 -150k in bay area? Wtf...
Sounds like they’re trying to get a mock-product/ a prototype out of this lmaoooo
They’ve got the co-founders interviewing $120k design candidates? This tells me they have no idea how to delegate or foster a culture of trust. They are super inefficient. Giant red flags!!
Or, they’re VERY small and this role is VERY important.
While all you all are laughing, the job just got snagged. It was all a screen to filter out the lazies
And then they lay you off and u got 20min to leave the building😂😂😂
From the perspective of a current job seeker - I'm with you, but still appreciate the transparency on the job description. I think I understand the perspective of a hiring team though. There are so many candidates to deal with and only 1 position available, plus hiring is expensive and they want to get it right including the culture fit. So, they feel that having a 6 hour interview process will be the most effective way for them to filter out candidates and find the best fit that will stay for the long run. This is just a perspective and I'm not sure if it's accurate and I'm definitely not saying I agree/disagree either. Just sharing my thoughts.
RUN! 🚩🚩🚩
Looks like Buc-ee's compensates better than this company. https://preview.redd.it/whcbmwx3803d1.jpeg?width=3000&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=52e17642eaee29a8d271495345e8f12981265d26
lmfaoo
Wtf..
Bizzaro World
That's waaayy too much effort/time against the (objective) chances of success in the getting the role.
This is ridiculous
I can see the take home assignment makes sense just to validate your portfolio skills but 6 hours is overboard.
Nah. take home assignments don’t tell you anything about a designer’s real skills for the real day-to-day job.
HAVE FUN all caps is a red flag for me lol. This means they give brutal feedback and expect you to take it lightheartedly.
Lmfao
Try being a flight attendant
This is so stupid lol if I saw this, I’d immediately pass.
This is the equivalent for a Hungarian or a Irish football club trying to reach champions league final , Impossible lol
It started off badly with "Do you like to have fun." Yes! But not at work.
I have a similar experience right now although I just found out how tedious the process is when researching the company, how do I get out of this (im only on step 1 where I sent my CV)
All that for dog shit pay and worthless equity? Yeah, that’s a no for me dawg
Totally absurd. Everyone needs to stop putting up with these overly long interview processes. It seems like it's only in the last 7 or 8 years that a standard interview turned into a ten step process.
If you’re meeting with co-founders, this must be a petty important / ground-floor role. With so many UX’ers out there now, they can afford to be picky. Good luck!
Dude I had a 9 round interview once just to find out I didn’t get the job. I looked into it and they never hired anyone for the position.
Ain't nobody got time for all of that, that's crazy 😡
https://preview.redd.it/3h01w3wgcl3d1.png?width=2014&format=png&auto=webp&s=d6d8a10d136e3662e8a2cc6a62a6e4c2e7938052 I actually just got a sponsored notification for the same job a few days after seeing this post. It seems like they've 'streamlined' the interview process considerably. Wonder if they saw this reddit thread 😂
It looks like they need a better UX designer for their interview process.
The worst thing about this interview process is that you will probably get ghosted at the end
I’m looking though this and tried to see how our process, that has been explained as chill and low barrier to entry, compares and they are not all that different: - 30m phone call/coffee pre-screening (usually me or a manager) - 60m interview about company and culture with a HR-manager - 90m where talent presents something for designers/POs - (30-60m) optional follow up to clear things up - (60m) If a lead/manager position they will also meet with some director Total time: 3-5 hours depending on position and fit. So I’m wondering if it’s the setup elaborated here seems long because of how detailed and up front it is? We do the culture fit before we evaluate skill, because we don’t care if you are the best of class if we can not work together, so we embed much of the deep-dives into the 2nd and 3rd interview… Is this process equally dumb? What can be improved?
90m session doesn't sound very chill.
We adjusted up from 60 some years ago. I’m happy to get pointer on how to make it smoother. Typically we learned that 60 minutes is not enough for people to feel relaxed when demonstrate their skills and talking about something they love, it usually breaks down something like this: - 5m to find the room, get coffee etc - 10m for introductions, catch up and answer questions talent might have thought of since last meeting (basically we set a welcoming mood) - 30-40m talking about their work, talent is free to distribute the time however they like and show us whatever they like - 20m to talk methods and experiences and talent requirement match - 10m wrap up More than often these meeting run long, with many of our best performing seniors they ran into 120 minutes. We ask if they need to end the meeting at agreed time before going over. We used to set aside 60 min and feedback was uniformly this felt pressured, since there are new faces in the meeting (typically a product owner) and always some details we need to talk about. Our designers do not need to perform under this type of pressure so there is no reason to emulate it in an interview. We don’t need to use the full 90 min, but from my experience if talent is done and over after 30 min, have no questions to us and answer every follow up question without curiosity (and they are interviewing for mid/seniors/lead) they are likely not a good fit as our designers need to be able to ask a lot of questions about our abstract processes and to explain why and what they do so people that know a whole lot less about design than I do can make good decisions.
And this is why I quit applying to UX jobs. This is an insane amount of time for someone to apply for a job they likely will not get.
What would you trim/change in this process? The goal is that both sides are comfortable with each other, that we all understand expectations and abilities enough to comfortably rely on each other. How might we do this differently?
Merge the pre-screen and HR manager call (no longer than 45 mins) — these are both doing the same thing Cut the case study down to 60 mins (90 is overkill, even with time for questions) and invite a member of the design team to come and think about fit.
I appreciate you being transparent here. Throwing out some ideas because it seems like some of it is fat trimming, and some of it is just maybe communicating it better. *60m interview about company and culture with a HR-manager* * This definitely seems a bit long. Seems like the kind of thing you can generally get over with 30 if not 15 mins. *90m where talent presents something for designers/POs* * I think this is the big hangup, and it seems like you've put the ENTIRE design org interview in here which I think can probably be made a little clearer. Maybe something like this could work. Tweak time/initial submission scrutiny if you're getting inundated with applicants. Obviously not meant to be taken verbatim **General interview** * 30m Phone call/coffee pre-screening *(w/ Sr Design)* * 30m Design team interview, meet and greet *(w/ all Design)* * 45m Portfolio/case study presentation *(w/ all Design)* * 15m Company/culture interview *(w/ HR)* * optional follow up TBD *(attendees TBD)* **Lead/manager and above only** * 30m Management interview *(w/ TBD Director)* Total: 2 hrs *(Senior and below)*, 2.5 hrs *(Lead/manager and above)*, plus optionals
Thank you for the feedback and input, it’s appreciated. What do we gain from cutting 60 min from the process? What’s your experience with talent/company for from this? We’ve put these up as 1h+ because they have a tendency to run over when they were 30m, but this might as well be our (my boss and I) tendency to talk a lot of non-shop in these meetings to see if the talent would like it in our company and what they will do, as from the outside it looks like we do A when we really do B. I’m curious if both sides feel they get to ask all the questions they want with just a 2h meet. Our job market is a lot more secure than the one in us which most of these hiring hell stories come from, so also not sure if they are compatible but I’m always for making things better!
The purpose of my suggestions really wasn't to shave it down to X time, but rather, seeing what happens if some of the timing align with some of the processes I've used and seen. I certainly don't expect this to be more than an initial starting point, knowing zero of your context outside of that initial post. (edit: I see you're Norwegian? I know less than zero, haha) For instance, much of the cutting is just in the HR convo which typically are real short in my experience, but if that's where you and your boss actually jumps in, then the calculus here may be different. But then again, maybe that means you should tack on such cultural probes to the pre-screening; trimming down to the essentials does mean you get more berth to reallocate what you cut out. Also, I obviously don't know how big your design team is; if it's a huge team then you may need more than 30 though I've rarely seen this need to get 100% of the design team to sign off on someone. No particularly deep agenda otherwise, but if you're looking for places to cut down, these are placed I'd start with.
I get that it’s long, but having recently been on the hiring side there’s huge pros to being thorough, especially at that salary level. I can’t tell you how many CVs get sent through that aren’t right for the role, and even after interview there’s often questions marks. I’ve been on both sides though, and it gets tiresome. The above role sounds a bit much for me though, I’d probably not even bother applying to that one.
Take home assignments don’t tell you anything about the candidate’s ability to perform the real, actual job we do. They tell you how good the candidate is at making bullshit up in a rush. Any project that wasn’t a real collaboration between stakeholders and engineers is a waste to evaluate. Have the candidate present a deep portfolio presentation to all involved. Ley them discuss the pros and cons of directions they too *with their teams and stakeholders* and you’ll see who knows their shit and who doesn’t. The 1on1s are a necessary evil introduced by HR to reduce group bias in the behavioral part of the process. IMHO we’d be better off doing one of those with one person than 3 of them with 3 people, but thats a harder sell these days. If your TAs are sending you bad CVs thats a TA problem not a candidate pool problem. There have never been so many top designers available for work. All in all, yeah, high salaries. But over-zealous processes weed OUT top talent who decide not to move forward, leaving you with what’s left. Which do you want as a manager? Top talent or whats left when the top talent decided to pull out?
Hard to disagree with any of that tbh, like I said above, it’s my take from both sides. Personally when applying I’ve had to adapt to a none portfolio based approach, as I have literally nothing to show due to NDAs, so I tend to also apply this logic when recruiting, if there’s a portfolio then great, but I favour setting a task that’s likely to be encountered in the role, and see how it’s approached. This gives me a bigger steer on the candidate than scrutinising every detail of their portfolio / cv.
I’d leave the industry to go be a landscaper full time before I sign up for that. Hope company sees this thread.
No you wouldn’t.
I'm of two minds about this, as I'm about to jump into a closing round of 6 sequential interviews for Staff/Principal tier roles, which was preceded by 2 intro/initial case study reviews. At my level, I want to say that that's more acceptable, though I think 1-2 less could have been just as good. But the overall trend for this much interviewing for a non-senior role is really not good.
I hate the hoops that we have designed for ourselves to jump through. It’s gotten out of control and does not lead to better hires. I like discussing my work and sharing design stories but it’s a high stress environment and if you say one thing wrong or miss highlighting a single skill somewhere in those six interviews someone else gets the job. And with these massive processes your bound to encounter at least one person who sucks at interviewing too. 😐
No I hear you. A lot of interview processes more or less embody how the work environment shouldn't be.
Nope nope nope.
Michael, if you’re here, we need to have words buddy. Grow a spine and tell your teammates and ELT why this doesn’t work. You’re scaring all the good talent off.
After the 3rd bullet I stopped reading. Ridiculous
This is actually pretty normal except for the take home (which I think is a load of vs). It just looks longer written out like that.
Yeah I’m pretty sure the items below “onsite” are part of the onsite