A cool guide for red flags during job interviews.

Applied for a job with a 6 tier interview process for an entry level support position. Tier 2 was a 45(!!!)min assessment test. Queue level 3 were we spend 20min discussing the results. The 20min end with the interviewer telling me they filled the position the day before but he wanted to give me the courtesy of a talk about the test anyway. What . The . Fuck. You wasted both of our time?!

Man you have the patience of a saint. I'll do 1 interview to meet the general interviewer and I'll agree to a second with higher ups. But it ends there. I also refuse any non-paid work. We can discuss and talk about anything and everything you want, but I'm not physically doing any work for free.
- I was pretty desperate for a job at that point and didn't even tell him what a fucking idiot he is.
  
  But it's all good, I landed another job with roughly 60% higher pay. Two interviews, one 20min for screening, and a second one 1h with higher ups. They did ask me to prepare and present a case to them for the second interview. But I was fine with that, I could tell they are serious.

For those not familiar, this is a fairly good explanation of SMART goals.

It's good and kind of you to explain SMART ...but let me tell you as exec management it's bullshit designed fulfull some other HR exec management's last HR course they took, or some obscure ESG requirement.

I tell my people what needs doing, and then they *just do it *because they are far smarter than me at their own jobs and usually find a more efficient way, with better outcomes, than I could design. I set an overarching goal, they do the rest how they see fit.

Hire the right people and you don't need corporate schemes like this.
- I'm luckily enough to work on a small team like the one you described, and yeah - our trello board isn't fully fleshed out. We can put vague descriptions of what needs to be done and the team gets it done.
  
  I think SMART goals are one of those rare times where an HR course writer unintentionally hit on something that some people need to hear. There's a junior engineer on my team whose goal was just, "I want to get better at infosec" - not measurable, time boxed, etc. by trying to at least hit one or two of the guidelines, they were able to flesh out this goal into things like "I want to attend a major security conference this year" and "I will study for, and achieve my Security+ cert".
  
  It worked for them - and helped them clarify their broad nebulous goal into smaller specific and achievable goals - but obviously like all business/hr things SMART goals aren't for everyone.
- While it's all fine and good to just say "hire the right people", that's a gross oversimplification. Those people became "right" through time and dedication, which led to experience. Not every employee will be a "right person" and none of them started out as one. Also consider that not every manager is a "right person", so making SMART goals protects you from their managerial inadequacy.
  
  SMART lays out how to both set and receive tasks, goals, assignments, etc., that are clearly defined. A goal lacking in one or more of these elements is what is commonly referred to as a "shitty goal". Why? I'll lay it out using the acronym from the perspective of an employee, plus an example for each of what can happen when that information is missing.
  
  Specific: what does my boss actually want from me?
  Converse - I completed the wrong task.
  
  Measurable: how do I prove I did the task and how well it was done?
  Converse - I did great work but can't prove to the client how great it is.
  
  Achievable: can the task actually be done with the time, knowledge, and resources available?
  Converse - I agreed to complete a task which turned out to be impossible given our resources.
  
  Relevant: how does the task relate to the job/project/etc?
  Converse - I completed an unnecessary task. Now I have to work even more to undo it and complete what actually does need to be done.
  
  Time: when does this need to be done by?
  Converse - I completed the task after it was needed, putting the project behind.
  
  If you're missing any of those parameters, you're either not giving your people enough information or they aren't asking enough questions. I'd love to hear how work can be consistently done well if any of that is missing.
  
  Those "right people" you mentioned are likely already incorporating these elements into communications with you. Dare say that makes them... SMARTer than you? Heyo!
- Even with what you've described, smart can still apply. The goal that's set would be a specific, desired outcome, the who, what, where, when, and why of how you get there, is up to the best judgement of the team. It's measurable in the way of having some way to determine that the specific goal was achieved.
  
  That's S and M, for A, achievable, I'm sure the team would let you know if a goal is not able to be reached. If they didn't think it can be done, they would not waste time trying.
  
  Relevant is mostly irrelevant for the workers, that's more whether management decides it is relevant to the companies goals.
  
  Time-based ... This is the part I'd have the most trouble with. It takes however long it takes. As long as nobody is dragging their ass, it shouldn't take any longer than it needs to, and putting a time constraint on it just puts undue pressure on the team for no good reason. As long as progress is steady and things are getting done, then time shouldn't really matter all that much.

Almost had one of those multi hour rounds of interviews and assessments while looking for a better job. I'm well qualified in my field and already had a few options when this particular company reached out. I agreed to an interview and they sent me multiple insanely long forms which already had my radar going.

Then I log into the virtual interview and there's multiple applicants. Weird again. Interviewer says we need to wait for other applicants, takes more than half an hour... Waste of my time but I had set aside an hour in my schedule for this, annoying but acceptable. THEN the interviewer says to be ready for this to take up to 4 hours and that we will be doing live, digital assessments. I logged out without saying anything.

The company reached out to me later saying I was a top candidate based on my CV and wanted me to do the full interview on another day. I should have been up front and told them their process was fucking insane but instead I just told them I was no longer interested in the position.

Some employers tend to forget that job interviews work both ways. Especially when you want a well qualified candidate who is in demand.

Nobody wants to waste their time working for a company that can't have its act together.
- Exactly! Any good interview I've had also involved asking me about my expectations. The job I ended up accepting (but haven't started yet) won me over with that as well as actually talking about work life boundaries

Some others:

The interviewer reeks of desperation

The "interview" feels more like a sales pitch

The interviewer invokes rock stars or ninjas

Do think think you could fight a ninja? We made some bad deals with the yakuza and we're kind of desperate for someone who can.

This is taking some pretty standard business jargon and making it a "red flag". I get annoyed when people say things like "like a family" too but spouting cliches isn't necessarily a red flag. Bad guide IMO.

Like Google has an awful bear of an interview process but that doesn't mean it's a bad place to work .

I'm not sure what bubble you inhabit but Google is "the top job".

Any company uttering the word "family" in 2024 is deeply out of touch. Is it common? Sadly, yes.
- I'm not sure what bubble you inhabit but Google is "the top job".
  
  Yeah, and their interview process would be a "red flag" if you follow this guide. A lot of tech companies have very long interview processes. It's not a red flag, it's just an expectation if you want a job that pays that much.

Here is one of my own:

If a company has an expensive and/or permanent advertisement for the position. Like one of those beautifully designed banners or billboards. Or permanently labeled on the back of a truck. It can mean 2 things:

The company is ever expanding (which isn't really feasible)
The position is always open, because people keep leaving for good reasons. (Company is horrible, pay is horrible, working conditions are horrible, ...)

The best advertisements are simple black and white designs in Word, printed on paper and taped to a window. You can even see how long they have been there based on how much discolouration the ink has.

A few of these are not red flags though... Yellow at best

Anything more than two interview rounds for anything below a C-level position is just nuts and an abuse of the candidate's time. You can never cover all bases in the interview process, that's what probation is for.

3-5 rounds is not at all uncommon in tech, but tech is also known for having completely deranged interview processes.

The jobs are unfortunately very much worth it.
I'd expand it to director plus or similar, i.e. for people who lead other people with personell responsibilities it starts making sense to have three rounds imo.

That said I share your gist!
- Yup, any leadership role is not a single or two interviews. You interview usually with HR, then C levels, then peers, then you're team usually. It's not unusual. Myself and I'm sure plenty others here have had the same experience.
At my current and previous job (IT) we do 3 rounds, team (most important), technical and management. I find that this works pretty well to hire people that really dit both the team and know how to do the job. Each last 40-60 minutes.

The first is where most candidates fail, it's an interview with your future peers with little technical content. Mainly talking about interests, work style, how you interact with team mates, etc.

The second is with senior team members and is mostly technical.

The third is management rubber stamping the teams choice and you have to fuck up pretty badly to fail.

I should add that we hire many candidates from abroad, and having people fail probation after moving their families across the globe would be a really shitty move.
- Three rounds seems to be common in Australia (only been here a year though). In the UK it was basically phone interview and then an in-person/zoom interview with a short tech test, but seeing absolutely no improvement in the proportion of candidates who don’t make it through probation (from either side) from the three interview system. It’s almost as though interviews are a really imperfect tool for determining who’ll best fit in the team culture.
- I'm in IT and this was what happened with me. I did my first round with the hiring guy, then for my team/technical, I had one with the manager who oversaw the team (who became my manager), then one with the owners of the company (it's a fairly small company).
  
  I landed the role and it pays more than my last job, plus the team is great, management is reasonable and understanding, consisting of people who try to work with me rather than hammer me into what they think I should do, and I'm just much happier with the job as a result.
  
  I'd question any more than three though, that seems unnecessary.
  
  I'm in a higher level position, but not lead of anything (just on a higher skilled position compared to others... Think escalation), anything less and three would be a bit much. If it's entry level skilled labor, one or two would be plenty, and anything they call "unskilled" even two seems like a lot. Upper management/C-level, probably would need more interviews, but IDK, I don't work in that type of job, nor do I have any desire to.
I once had to do three rounds of interviews for a level 1 tech position. I got the job and the company was mostly fine with no major weirdness, but unnecessarily drawn out interview process for a simple job.

The issue was they have a had of doing interviews and that template was used for all interviews and they're were not prepared to change it based on logic or reason. Independent thought was not encouraged at that company.

Always ask in an interview "What do you like about working here?"

You can usually gauge from they're body language if it's an awkward working environment. Not so easy when interviews are done online sadly.

For Future Promises, you should also be prepared to walk when these promises aren't kept. I once worked for a company that met my previous salary, but had in my contract that after 6 months I would get a £5k increase.

It didn't happen, and after 6 months of chasing the CEO outright said to me "we don't have to pay you what we agreed a year ago, we pay you based on what you're worth now".

I should have left, but in many ways I'm glad I didn't, because in the end they went under during COVID and I got an awesome amount of severance from them - with a new job lined up after that paid much more.

I don't think all of these are true/accurate.

Remember: don't believe everything you read on the internet

You forgot to mention the author of that quote: Abraham Lincoln
Which one? I find them all very reasonable guides.
- Having lots of rounds of interviews, as long as each one is effective and focused on a different aspect, in my experience is a green flag because it means they take great care in hiring and you end up working with excellent people. My current job had a talent team screening call, a high level technical best practices discussion, a practical homework assignment with follow-up peer interview and problem solving session, a cross-guild culture interview, and a chat with one of the founders. Apart from the first and last ones they each took more than an hour but they all felt very productive in terms of gathering information in both directions. And it's by far the best job I've ever had
  
  Also the large salary range makes sense if they are hiring e.g. multiple developers and are open to a large range of seniorities/experience levels

I wish I had this handy guide like three or four years ago. I switched to an employer where I did not enjoy my time there. They bait/switched the position (I applied through a friend to his department, NOC, and instead was interviewed for MSP services (tier 2, but it's not what I was looking to get into), the interview was short, maybe 20 minutes, and one of the attendees, which I later found out was one of the owners, was driving at the time. Not just in their car, and not just being driven around, he was literally driving a vehicle at the time.

I got an offer after that one interview, and within about a year I started to see all the long-term talent walk out the door. I was basically forced to find a new job and I'm much happier for it. The new place did three rounds of interviews, has a decent (not perfect) health insurance package, and the owners of the company are friendly and understanding about everything I've brought to them. This new position is easily shaping up to be one of the best jobs I've had so far in my career.

I do IT support by the way. Usually escalation level positions.

I will say that the median salary for my career in my area, is quite pitiful relative to the overall industry. The current employer is well above the local area median, but a far cry from the industry average.

I will say that the median salary for my career in my area, is quite pitiful relative to the overall industry.

This is why the industry is so against remote working even though it's obviously one of the easiest jobs to do remotely. It's so they can get away with pain crap wages simply because it's "the local standard".

Them: We're like a family

Me: Cool, I need a place to crash. What's for lunch? Can you share some gas money?

These are great, but get details about a pension contribution plans, as these can be lucrative.

Big ups to og OP