Who does the interviewing?
In an ideal situation, I think management and HR should whittle down the pool of interviewers to a small pool final candidates through an initial round of interviews. Then I think key members of the team should partipate in a second round of interviews with the final candidates and have input into the final selections.
Management did the entire interview process at Camel.
Technical team leaders together with managers were doing the interviewing at Algoritma.
Personally, I don't ever want HR involved in the pre-hiring process. Of course, I don't particularly ever relish working at a place large enough to (a) have an HR department that (b) feels the right to filter resumes based on OCR and keywords.
Brad Wilson (dotnetguy.techieswithcats.com)
In Flameville, everybody gets to do interviewing and the decision is a consensus decision where everybody's vote holds equal weight.
Flame Managers should be spending their time managing and let go of the past. Managers who code in a reasonably sized company are hiding from something and should not be trusted.
Managers who code - yikes!
In any job that requires skill and talent, such as programming, your best people working in that job should do all the qualification, from the first phone interview forward. Nobody else has even the remotest capacity to measure specific skill and talent than those who do the thing really well. A good interviewer can weed out nearly all of the unqualified candidates in 5- to 60-minute telephone screenings, so you need not worry about wasting too much of their time. The cost of a bad hire is far greater, and enduring.
In education it is nearly always the immediate superior, and sometimes his immediate superior that does the hiring.
I have participated in the hiring process twice for research organizations. HR only compiled the CVs and then sent all of them to me, together with a copy of the hiring policy (antidiscrimination act, etc), then members of my team and me made the shortlist based on technical requirements and experience. During the interviews we have the supervisor (me), peers to be and a representative of HR to check that we weren't going to be sued for asking something stupid.
In theory at least, any candidate brought in for an interview should be qualified (based on the resume and perhaps a phone screening). So the real purpose of the interview is to separate out the liars and nut cases. If the hiring manager is not qualified to do that, the company is in a heap of trouble. I think the main benefit of having staff help with the interviews is to give them exposure to the process, so when they are managers and have to make the decisions they are qualified to do so.
"Perhaps" a phone screening? It is absolutely *impossible* to assess whether someone is a qualified programmer from the resume. Even if every word is absolutely true, a resume cannot help you assess how much they understand, how they think, how they approach a problem, or most important of all qualifications: their innate aptitude for programming.
"Flame Managers should be spending their time managing and let go of the past. Managers who code in a reasonably sized company are hiding from something and should not be trusted."
Just me (Sir to you)
I didn't institute the policy of having some managers still code, I just happen to agree with it.
Fog Creek Home