Setting the Right Length for Interview Processes

As we head into 2026, can we please stop making candidates go through three or four rounds of interviews? A recruiter screen should be used to confirm alignment on role expectations, pay, location, and overall fit. If everything aligns, the next step should be a conversation with the hiring manager. In many cases, that is all that is needed. I do understand that some higher-level roles, such as Director, VP, and above, may require more than two interviews due to scope, leadership impact, and complexity. Outside of those levels, lengthy interview processes are often unnecessary. If you are a hiring manager, please know that it is possible to hire strong talent without requiring multiple interview rounds. Long processes are not always a sign of thoroughness and they often create unnecessary barriers. I received my current role after one interview with two managers, who are now my managers. I interviewed on a Tuesday and had an offer by Friday afternoon. The hiring managers I work with use a streamlined approach. One interview, a timely decision, and clear communication. The result is that we hire quickly, attract strong candidates, and avoid losing talent due to delays that are not needed. Additionally, requiring three to four interviews, take-home assessments, presentations, or other tasks that result in candidates providing unpaid work, ideas, or strategies is concerning. Interviews should be about evaluating alignment and capability, not asking candidates to complete free labor. If work is required beyond a conversation, it should be compensated. Respect candidate's time. Respect their experience. Respect the effort it takes to prepare, interview, and follow up. As we move into 2026, let’s focus on hiring with intention, clarity, and efficiency. If someone is a good fit for the role, hire them. Alright, that’s it. Thanks for coming to my LinkedIn Talk.

Job interviews shouldn't be marathons designed to trick you. 👇🏼 They should be simple conversations to see if you and the company fit. A hard truth I've learned from years as a career coach: Companies that drag you through 7+ interview rounds aren't being careful—they're wasting your time and showing you exactly how messy their decision-making is. My client Sarah just went through her NINTH interview for a mid-level marketing role. Nine interviews. For a job that probably could've been explained in one conversation. "They really want to make sure I'm the right person," she said. I told her to run. Look, if a company can't figure out whether you're a good fit after talking to you three times, that says way more about them than it does about you. Here's how normal companies handle hiring: ✅ 1 // Three rounds max, and each one should have a clear purpose. First call with the hiring manager to see if there's basic fit. Second round to meet the team and maybe do a quick skills demo. Final conversation with whoever makes decisions. That's it. ✅ 2 // They tell you exactly when you'll hear back—and actually stick to it. None of this "we'll be in touch soon" stuff. Good companies say "You'll hear from us by Friday at 5 PM" and then actually follow through. ✅ 3 // The whole thing should feel like a normal conversation between adults. Not weird brain teasers or trick questions. Just honest talk about what the job actually involves and whether you'd be good at it. Sarah ended up finding a company that interviewed her like a human being. Two conversations, clear timeline, straightforward questions about the work. She got the offer in a week and absolutely loves it there. That company with the 9-round circus? They're still trying to fill the same role four months later. Here's the thing—if they can't make a hiring decision efficiently, imagine how long it takes them to approve your vacation requests or decide on new projects. You're interviewing them just as much as they're interviewing you. Pay attention to how they treat your time. 📌 Question: What's the most ridiculous interview process you've been through?

In the NBA, teams get 20 mins interviews to evaluate a decision worth millions. Most founders spend hours interviewing across multiple rounds and still get it wrong half the time. So what's the difference? NBA teams aren't ACTUALLY making their decision in those 20 minutes. By the time they sit down for that interview, they’ve already spent months building the data architecture: → Defined what specific behaviors predict success in your culture and playing style. → Have years of performance data under different conditions.  → Created a systematic evaluation framework with measurable criteria. So by the time they get to the interview, that's just confirmation of what the data already laid out. But now compare that to how most executive hiring happens: → No success profile defined before the search starts.  → Every interviewer asks the same generic questions.  → Five hours of unstructured conversation across multiple rounds.  → Decision based on who they liked, not who actually fits the system. Ironically, most companies spend more time during their hiring processes but collect worse data. This simply comes down to them not having the right frameworks in place – ones that prioritize efficiency and specificity over length of time spent and gut feel. When I built talent evaluation systems for the Raptors, I created a 3-layer framework: Layer 1: Cognitive processing: how fast someone processes information and makes decisions under pressure Layer 2: Personality assessment: conscientiousness, grit, growth mindset, the traits that actually predict performance Layer 3: Culture fit against specific non-negotiable characteristics (not vague vibes, measurable behaviors) You can’t just skip straight to Layer 3 based on gut feel. Before your next executive search, answer these questions: → What do your top performers in this role actually DO differently? (Not generic traits) → What 6-8 characteristics predict success in YOUR environment with YOUR team? → How will you objectively evaluate those characteristics beyond interview performance? The decision-making frameworks I used evaluating NBA talent work just as well for hiring your VP of Sales. You just need to actually build them.

𝐈’𝐯𝐞 𝐧𝐨𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐞𝐝 𝐚 𝐜𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐫 𝐩𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧: 𝐡𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐧𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐢𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐫𝐮𝐬𝐡𝐞𝐝 𝐡𝐢𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 When teams are lean and resources are tight, the pressure to “just fill the seat” is real. But speed without structure is one of the biggest drivers of early exits. Here are a few strategies I’ve seen work when the goal is making the right hire—not just a fast one 👇 🚫 𝐃𝐨𝐧’𝐭 𝐒𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐥𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐅𝐢𝐫𝐬𝐭 “𝐀𝐯𝐚𝐢𝐥𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞” 𝐂𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐝𝐚𝐭𝐞 Taking shortcuts can be costly. A rushed hire often incurs greater expenses than a more structured search, especially in today’s talent market where exceptional are available, but poor screening can obscure them. 𝐇𝐞𝐫𝐞’𝐬 𝐡𝐨𝐰 𝐞𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐨𝐲𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐞𝐧𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐰 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐬𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐞𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐜𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐬 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐝𝐞𝐥𝐚𝐲𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐡𝐢𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠: ✅ Separate “Speed” from “Quality” ☞ Fast hiring doesn’t mean fewer steps; it means clearer ones. ☞ Define must-have versus trainable skills upfront. ☞ Align hiring managers on what success looks like in 90 days. ☞ Remove subjective criteria that create bias or confusion. ☞ Clarity accelerates decision-making. ✅ Use a Tiered Screening Model ☞ Not every candidate requires the same level of review. ☞ Stage 1: Resume + knockout criteria (automated or recruiter-led). ☞ Stage 2: Structured phone or video screen (skills + motivation). ☞ Stage 3: Focused panel or role-based assessment. ☞ This approach saves time while maintaining quality. ✅ Standardize Interviews (Especially Now) ☞ Recessions amplify hiring mistakes. ☞ Use consistent interview questions. ☞ Score candidates against defined competencies. ☞ Train interviewers to evaluate evidence rather than relying on instincts. ☞ Structured interviews consistently outperform gut feelings. ✅ Keep a Warm Bench (Even When You’re Not Hiring) ☞ Hiring should never start from scratch. ☞ Maintain relationships with silver-medalist candidates. ☞ Partner with training programs or workforce pipelines. ☞ Build talent pools for hard-to-fill roles. ☞ Future you will appreciate this preparation. ✅ Measure What Actually Matters ☞ If you don’t track it, you can’t improve it. ☞ Focus on time-to-productivity, quality of hire at six months ☞ Early turnover signals The best organizations don’t rush decisions. They design processes that scale with pressure. 💬 How are you adjusting your hiring process right now? #hire #jobs #jobseekers #hiringtips #interviewtips #interviewprocess

How many people are too many in an interview process? We get asked our take on this all the time. But there's always a question behind the question. When they ask that what they're really trying to say is "how do we structure an interview process that's thorough without causing interview fatigue for candidates?" And my personal opinion is it's rarely about the number of interviewers. We have certain PE clients that include 10-12+ interviewers who run extremely efficient processes. The number one thing that will cause delays and candidate frustration is adding interviews on at the end of the process. Candidates start to think this is a never-ending process. Or it takes too long to "figure out next steps" and that candidate is hired elsewhere. So, here's the playbook I typically advise: 1. Design the entire interview process start-to-finish before the search kicks off. Every single step. If you know them all in advance, you can move people through fast. 2. Clearly state who are key decision-makers vs context interviewers. The key decision-making team should be no more than 5 people (ideally 3 people) and this is the group who is on the weekly search update call. They do all the upfront interviewing narrowing down the search to a group of finalists for the rest of the context interviewers to meet. 3. Group interview cohorts together when possible (candidate + ELT team, candidate + deal team, etc) Start with these 3 and watch your time to hire dramatically decrease. And remember...time kills all deals. #privateequity #hiringprocess

Let’s talk about it — Interviews. I’ve seen (and personally experienced) up to six rounds of interviews for a single position. Let’s be honest — that’s excessive. This kind of process leads to interview fatigue and creates a poor candidate experience. We have to do better. Here’s my take: • For individual contributor roles, a 3-step process (including the recruiter screen) should be sufficient. • For leadership roles, a 4-5 step process is reasonable — again, including the recruiter screen. Make sure to include interviewers who will actually work with the candidate. The goal is to assess alignment and fit, not overwhelm them with hoops to jump through. According to SHRM, C-suite candidates typically undergo an average of five interviews, while associate-level candidates average around three. So if your process is significantly longer than that — it might be time to re-evaluate. The more rounds you add, the more disorganized and indecisive your process can appear to top talent. Let’s build efficient, respectful, and thoughtful hiring experiences. #candidateexperience #hiring #interviews