You bring up a good point. Yes, I ask folks to work on some kind of a project. I think most folks spend 30 to 60 minutes on it. Two things I probably should have mentioned: A) I hand-craft an introductory email to each person, explaining how I found them, why I think there’s a good fit between them and blist, etc. For those who have blogs, I usually read their posts for the last 6 to 12 months. I want to get to know them as best I can. B) The history for the take-home project was actually to help those who interview poorly but whom I know can code. Having one project without time constraint gives the candidate an opportunity to potentially do even better than in a time compacted in-person interview.

Kevin

What you outlined for the actual interviews seems perfectly reasonable. The pre-interview step is the interesting bit. I’m wondering if it’s going to filter out more experienced people.

To me, there needs to be some symmetry in the process. Spending time in interviews means that both sides are using a very valuable resource – their own time. If you’re spending a lunch, or half a day or a day with me, both of us are making a statement that we’re serious.

The take-home assignments, on the other hand, don’t have that assurance. A part of me would be tempted to say something like “sure, but I’m going to want something similar from you guys. Here’s a programming/marketing/whatever problem; give me your solution so I have some assurance that I’m going to be working with people who are equally capable.”

I can’t imagine actually making that suggestion, but I’m having a hard time convincing myself that there’s a reason I think it’s a strange request coming from one side of the interviewing process but not the other.

The men that fit such criteria are rarely interested in jumping through someone else’s hoops.

Good luck, I’ll continue reading along.