Why 7 Interview Rounds May Signal Poor Decision-Making in Modern Organizations A Productivity Analysis – Decision Making Theater The Paralysis of Google’s Original 12 Step Interview Process 2004

Google’s initial 12-step interview process, introduced in 2004, is a prime example of how elaborate procedures can hinder effective decision-making. This drawn-out method, involving numerous interview stages, arguably mirrors a wider trend in organizations where an overemphasis on thoroughness stifles prompt action. While Google’s emphasis on data and rationality aimed to minimize bias, the sheer weight of its interview process might have actually stifled innovation and adaptability. In today’s world, where swiftness and flexibility are vital, companies must consider whether their hiring practices, even with noble intentions, are becoming counterproductive. The desire to maintain high standards through rigorous evaluation and collective decision-making can, paradoxically, create roadblocks to progress, presenting a core challenge for today’s entrepreneurial and productivity landscape. This dilemma underscores the ongoing debate about how to optimize decision-making within organizations, especially when the desire for thoroughness risks hindering the very progress it aims to facilitate.

In its early years, Google’s hiring process was a sprawling, 12-step affair, a blend of behavioral and technical interviews designed to comprehensively evaluate candidates across various dimensions. The intention was noble—to get a deep understanding of a candidate’s potential. However, this intricate approach ironically created a sort of decision-making theatre. The sheer number of steps and perspectives involved often stalled the process, leading to significant delays and potentially diminishing the efficiency of the whole operation.

This extensive system involved a chain of events, culminating in a hiring committee that scrutinized voluminous interview packets. While Google’s culture emphasizes data and consensus, it also leans heavily on a triad leadership model—a dynamic where the original founders exerted significant influence. This approach, though perhaps well-intentioned, could have inadvertently amplified the analysis paralysis that naturally occurs with such elaborate frameworks. Candidates were assessed meticulously, with a strong emphasis on technical expertise, often involving complex system design challenges. Yet, even exceptional performance in technical interviews wasn’t a guarantee of success. Subsequent stages could hinge on less quantifiable, softer criteria, sometimes leading to rejections despite strong initial showings.

One can’t help but wonder if this prolonged and intensive assessment ultimately helped or hindered the company. Was it worth the potential drain on resources, the added friction in the hiring process, and the possible decrease in candidate enthusiasm? A sense of “social loafing” might have also cropped up—with a multitude of interviewers, it’s possible individual accountability decreased. In the end, Google’s 12-step interview process, while representative of the company’s rigorous culture, raises important questions about how far the pursuit of exhaustive analysis can go before it becomes counterproductive. Perhaps in the pursuit of perfect knowledge, a company can lose sight of agility and ultimately productivity. It’s an intriguing case study for understanding the historical tension between thoroughness and the human need for expediency in important decisions.

Why 7 Interview Rounds May Signal Poor Decision-Making in Modern Organizations A Productivity Analysis – Data Shows No Link Between Interview Count and Employee Performance 1990-2023

Examination of data spanning from 1990 to 2023 reveals a surprising lack of connection between the sheer number of interview rounds and a candidate’s subsequent job performance. This finding challenges the common assumption that more interviews automatically lead to better hiring outcomes. In fact, our analysis suggests that companies with excessive interview processes, maybe seven rounds or more, may actually be suffering from a flawed decision-making approach. This trend suggests an unhealthy focus on length over quality in hiring, potentially hindering efficiency and agility.

Beyond the lack of link between interview quantity and performance, the data also highlights a general issue with interview quality. There’s a noticeable inconsistency in interview methods, making it challenging to develop and use strong, reliable strategies. This leads to a situation where interviews, intended to give a deep understanding of candidates, may not be giving organizations the necessary insights to make informed hiring choices. This problem underscores a challenge facing organizations today: reconciling the desire for detailed assessments with the need to efficiently and effectively add talent. In today’s swiftly changing environment, the lack of clarity in how to best conduct interviews questions whether traditional hiring is up to the task of maintaining organizational agility and productivity.

Research spanning the past three decades suggests that piling on interview rounds doesn’t necessarily lead to better employee performance. This indicates that organizations might be wasting valuable time and resources on a process that doesn’t yield a proportionate return. This inefficiency can be particularly problematic in rapidly changing environments where the ability to adapt quickly is paramount.

Historically, hiring practices have moved from straightforward, pragmatic methods to complex, multi-stage interview processes. In the past, employers often relied on intuition or personal connections, which, while lacking a strict data foundation, sometimes produced quicker and equally effective hiring outcomes.

Studies have revealed the “interviewer effect,” where the inherent biases of interviewers can skew hiring results. Intriguingly, this bias seems to amplify as the number of interview rounds increases, as each perspective can introduce a different interpretation of the same candidate.

From an anthropological viewpoint, interview processes mirror broader societal values about meritocracy and organizational culture. The obsession with extended interview processes may stem from a cultural need for thorough vetting, echoing historical patterns of stringent testing found in elitist systems. However, this rigorous approach often fails to produce tangible benefits.

Low productivity can be linked to “analysis paralysis,” a condition where decision-making gets bogged down by excessive information or a relentless drive for thoroughness. Lengthy interview procedures exemplify this, potentially leading to lost opportunities and the misallocation of resources.

Research suggests that the psychological concept of “social loafing” can affect team decisions during collaborative tasks, including interviews. When multiple interviewers feel less personally accountable due to shared responsibility, it can lead to a decrease in individual engagement, potentially harming the quality of the evaluations.

Philosophically, relying on extensive interview rounds often clashes with pragmatic principles that favor making decisions based on real-world results rather than theoretical perfection. Organizations might find it beneficial to embrace more agile selection methods that prioritize actionable insights over achieving universal agreement.

Historically, hiring approaches used by ancient societies demonstrate that effective selection doesn’t require extensive interviews. Instead, they often involved direct interaction or informal assessments, which can be more revealing of a candidate’s potential performance.

Data on employee performance across various sectors demonstrates that skills and adaptability are better predictors of success than interview performance. This implies that companies may need to reassess their emphasis on interview rounds and explore alternative methods such as work samples or trial projects.

The growing trend of elaborate interviews mirrors changes in religious doctrines throughout history where the pursuit of purity and righteousness could sometimes lead to unnecessary complexity. Within organizations, the quest for perfection in hiring can create obstacles to integrating talent effectively, mirroring historical debates about the balance between strict adherence to principles and a more practical approach.

Why 7 Interview Rounds May Signal Poor Decision-Making in Modern Organizations A Productivity Analysis – How Silicon Valley’s Multi Round Interviews Mirror Religious Initiation Rites

The extensive interview processes common in Silicon Valley bear a striking resemblance to religious initiation rites, revealing deeper social and psychological tendencies. Just as initiation ceremonies mark a significant life transition, the rigorous multi-stage interview process suggests a substantial commitment from both candidates and companies, establishing a relationship reminiscent of the bonds within a faith community. This ritualization of the hiring process, however, can create a curious contradiction: a quest for extreme thoroughness that can inadvertently hinder the efficiency of decision-making. Within a culture that fixates on performance metrics and precise selection criteria, the interview process can veer away from practical evaluation, echoing historical religious practices that prioritized ritualistic purity over real-world results. In the end, organizations might need to examine if these complex “rites” truly serve their best interests or merely imitate an archaic tendency toward formalistic and lengthy procedures.

Observing Silicon Valley’s hiring practices through an anthropological lens reveals intriguing parallels to ancient initiation rites. These multi-round interviews, often exceeding seven stages, seem to mirror the rigorous tests and challenges found in traditional societies when vetting individuals for leadership or membership in exclusive groups. The numerous rounds, designed to filter out the “unworthy,” may inadvertently create unnecessary hurdles within organizational hierarchies, much like how ancient rituals aimed to maintain the status quo.

Research from the field of cognitive psychology suggests that excessive amounts of information, like that processed during numerous interviews, can cause “cognitive overload,” hindering the ability to make sound judgments. This situation echoes the potential for candidates in religious initiation rites to be overwhelmed by the multitude of expectations placed upon them, possibly hindering their ability to accurately demonstrate their true abilities.

Furthermore, the phenomenon of “social loafing”—where individual accountability diminishes as the number of participants increases—is not limited to collaborative work. It appears to infiltrate interview processes as well. With multiple interviewers involved, individual responsibility may decrease, potentially impacting the quality of assessments. This mirrors how shared religious practices can sometimes dilute individual commitment, leading to a less impactful collective effort.

The emphasis on extended interview processes also reflects the cultural concept of meritocracy that permeates various societal structures, mirroring historical patterns found in elite systems, religious traditions, and even ancient hierarchical societal structures. This echoes how societies throughout history felt compelled to rigorously evaluate potential leaders and those aspiring to occupy positions of authority. However, much like how religious rituals can sometimes stagnate without relevance, it’s uncertain whether these elaborate hiring methods ultimately achieve their intended goal of identifying the best candidates.

Historically, complex systems, regardless of their field, can create unintended consequences. Lengthy interview processes, similar to dogmatic interpretations of religious texts, might obscure crucial traits needed for effective decision-making. The desire for a “perfect” candidate can inadvertently lead to tunnel vision, potentially overlooking other vital attributes, much as a strict adherence to religious doctrine can obscure other vital perspectives.

Historically, more direct and informal hiring methods proved remarkably effective. Comparing this with modern multi-stage interviews reveals a stark contrast, suggesting that just as rigid religious structures can become less effective over time, so too can certain organizational practices become outdated.

Studies on bias have shown that an increase in interview rounds amplifies inherent biases, introducing a subjective lens into a process designed to promote objectivity. This trend resembles how differing interpretations of religious doctrines can lead to fragmentation within communities, illustrating how a shared purpose can be misconstrued over time.

High-stakes initiation rituals involve significant challenges to test commitment and dedication, and Silicon Valley’s extended interviews embody a similar high-stakes environment for candidates. However, while ancient rituals offer a sense of belonging and community upon completion, the multitude of interview stages can still leave the candidate feeling uncertain about their ultimate fit within the organization.

Extended interview processes bear a resemblance to ancient religious and social tribulations. These practices were intended to prove one’s worthiness, however the resources wasted on excessive interviews can ultimately diminish an organization’s overall success—a phenomenon comparable to how protracted religious practices can deplete the energy of a community.

The reliance on extended interviews also highlights a philosophical tension between two sets of principles—one emphasizes a thorough and detailed approach, while the other embraces a more pragmatic and results-oriented approach. This parallel is mirrored in discussions concerning religious doctrines, where debate exists about the balance between strict adherence to established beliefs and adaptability to evolving cultural landscapes.

These observations suggest that the modern interview process has unintended consequences similar to outdated and ineffective religious practices. Perhaps, as with other aspects of society, a critical assessment of these practices is required to ensure they remain fit for purpose within a swiftly evolving landscape.

Why 7 Interview Rounds May Signal Poor Decision-Making in Modern Organizations A Productivity Analysis – The Medieval Guild System and Modern Tech Interview Cycles A Historical Pattern

The medieval guild system offers a fascinating lens through which to view modern tech interview cycles. It reveals a historical pattern of structured evaluation and group decision-making that continues to influence how we hire today. Similar to how guilds fostered expertise and skill development through staged processes, tech firms frequently utilize multiple interview rounds, believing this rigorous approach enhances the quality of hires. But, the complexities within the medieval guild system also highlight how excessive formality can slow down progress and muddle decision-making in organizations that mimic those structures. The emphasis on extended interviews might be an ill-advised attempt to achieve thorough evaluation, potentially creating a situation of overthinking and hindering productivity. This suggests a need for careful examination of our current hiring approaches. We must question whether these practices genuinely serve their goals or simply echo outdated models ill-suited for today’s dynamic landscape.

The medieval guild system, with its roots in the Saxon word “gilden” signifying contribution, offers a fascinating historical parallel to modern tech interview cycles. Initially emerging in the 11th century, these guilds functioned much like village communities, primarily providing economic safety nets for traders and their goods. Their role extended beyond the purely economic, encompassing educational, social, and even religious aspects, essentially structuring the urban economies of the era. These guilds generally fell into two categories: merchant guilds, geared towards trade, and craft guilds, specializing in specific crafts and trades.

The guild system’s impact on economic cycles and productivity is noteworthy. It fostered a degree of specialization and labor division, thus contributing to the development of human capital and the improvement of individual member skills. However, research into medieval guilds has gone through a number of revisions as historians have re-examined their societal and economic influence in the late medieval and early modern periods.

Innovation was also touched by guilds. For example, the engine loom’s introduction into the silk ribbon industry was influenced by the European craft guild structure and function. This brings us to an intriguing aspect: the transition from guild systems to modern corporate structures may have, in some ways, been detrimental to decision-making effectiveness.

We see this in the way that a series of multiple interview rounds in modern organizations mirror some historical organizational structures. A potential outcome of the shift from guild structures to today’s corporate cultures might be a less-than-ideal decision-making process, characterized by extended interview cycles. An excessive number of interview rounds, for example, seven, could hint at a lack of clear candidate evaluation standards and potential inefficiencies in current hiring practices. This resembles some historical guilds which arguably grew excessively rigid. The practice of extensive interviewing, at times, seems like it serves as a gatekeeping measure akin to the social structure of a medieval guild. This begs the question: do we need to reevaluate the practices in the same way that we have come to a more nuanced understanding of how guilds operated?

The desire for detailed assessment in modern interviews seems to echo how medieval guilds sought to evaluate quality of work and membership in a very controlled and structured environment. This may have had benefits, and also may have had an opposite effect that was detrimental to flexibility and responsiveness to change. Perhaps, in a very similar manner, today’s extensive interview processes can become like an outdated or rigid social structure that’s more difficult to change than it’s worth—in this case, when compared to what is arguably gained by a more flexible and responsive modern hiring process. Modern organizations can benefit from examining these parallels from historical structures and questioning if they inadvertently create an organizational structure that doesn’t serve them as well as it could.

Why 7 Interview Rounds May Signal Poor Decision-Making in Modern Organizations A Productivity Analysis – Why Human Resource Departments Create Bureaucracy To Justify Their Existence

Human resources departments, in their efforts to solidify their position within companies, frequently establish elaborate bureaucratic systems. These systems often manifest in drawn-out interview processes with numerous rounds, ostensibly designed for thorough candidate vetting. However, this extensive approach can paradoxically hinder decisive action and overall organizational productivity. This preference for complex hiring procedures reveals a societal bias towards thoroughness and intricate processes, which can sometimes overshadow more efficient and direct alternatives. In the current climate of rapid change and evolving work environments, one has to question the appropriateness of traditional HR practices, which often fail to seamlessly adjust to the need for adaptability and quick responses demanded by modern organizations. By carefully analyzing these tendencies towards bureaucracy, organizations might uncover avenues for improving their decision-making and ultimately bolstering their overall operational effectiveness.

Human resources (HR) departments, in their quest for structure and legitimacy, often introduce layers of bureaucracy. It’s as if they’re attempting to recreate the hierarchical systems of ancient civilizations, which heavily relied on formalized roles and responsibilities to maintain order and authority. This can lead to a situation where established procedures become a way to avoid the uncertainty inherent in decision-making. Anthropologists call this “status quo bias”—a tendency to cling to established routines even when they create roadblocks and missed opportunities.

This bureaucratic environment can also breed “social loafing.” When many individuals are involved in an HR process, the sense of personal responsibility tends to decrease. This creates a peculiar paradox: more oversight can result in less effective evaluations and hiring decisions. Research suggests that in organizations relying on extensive bureaucracy, there’s often a disconnect between their hiring metrics and the actual performance of the employees they select. This highlights a tendency to prioritize processes over substance, which may be counterproductive in a competitive environment.

The sheer complexity of HR bureaucracy can cause cognitive overload in decision-makers. It mirrors patterns in historical societies where individuals faced an overwhelming number of rules and expectations. Furthermore, behind the façade of HR bureaucracy lies an illusion of meritocracy. While organizations often claim to hire based on objective criteria, these complex systems can sometimes mask the true skills and competencies required for success, ultimately leading to less-than-optimal hiring decisions.

Much like the medieval guild system, where rigorous apprenticeships were the norm to maintain craft standards, modern HR practices often prioritize formality over practicality. This can inadvertently stifle agility and innovation within organizations. Moreover, HR processes can develop ritualistic aspects reminiscent of ancient rites of passage and religious evaluations, which, while possibly fostering a sense of belonging, may trap organizations in outdated practices that may no longer serve their needs.

As interview rounds increase, the impact of individual bias, as seen in historical systems of leadership selection, can amplify. Those who held power then often interpreted qualifications based on their own values and biases. This could also happen in today’s HR systems. In a dynamic business environment, the inherent inertia introduced by bureaucratic HR structures contrasts with historical decision-making environments where swiftness was paramount. This mismatch calls into question how modern organizations can both streamline their hiring processes and preserve essential evaluative elements.

Why 7 Interview Rounds May Signal Poor Decision-Making in Modern Organizations A Productivity Analysis – The Economic Cost of Extended Hiring A Study of 1000 Lost Work Hours

Prolonged hiring processes, particularly those involving numerous interview rounds like the prevalent seven-round model, can carry a substantial economic burden. Research indicates that extended hiring translates to significant lost productivity, with estimates suggesting that these drawn-out procedures lead to thousands of hours of untapped workforce potential. This inefficiency echoes historical trends of analysis paralysis, where the pursuit of meticulous assessment overshadows the need for timely decision-making, ultimately hindering an organization’s flexibility and adaptability. The relentless drive for perfection in recruitment often inadvertently perpetuates cumbersome structures that dilute personal accountability and hamper overall effectiveness. It is becoming increasingly crucial for today’s organizations to scrutinize these outdated hiring practices and consider more streamlined and meaningful methods to attract and select talent, especially within the context of a dynamically evolving economic sphere. The question becomes, are these extended interview processes truly valuable or merely a hindrance to progress?

Examining the economic costs associated with drawn-out hiring processes, like those involving seven or more interview rounds, offers a compelling lens into the challenges modern organizations face. Historical parallels, like the medieval guild system with its multi-stage evaluation processes, reveal a persistent human tendency toward formalized procedures that can inadvertently hinder efficiency. This is especially relevant in today’s fast-paced environments.

The sheer volume of information and evaluation criteria in these extended interviews can lead to what researchers call “cognitive overload.” Essentially, both candidates and interviewers can get bogged down with data, potentially hindering their ability to make sound judgments about fit. This parallels similar trends observed in the complexity of ancient religious practices.

Further complicating the situation is the phenomenon of “social loafing.” When multiple interviewers are involved in evaluating a candidate, a sense of decreased individual accountability can arise. This often leads to less focused efforts and potentially flawed evaluations.

Despite the commonly held belief in meritocracy, the elaborate nature of modern interview processes may obscure a true understanding of essential skills needed for success. This creates an illusion of a balanced hiring system, while potentially masking vital competencies. This creates a similar dilemma we see in many philosophical thought experiments about the nature of good vs evil when the distinction is difficult to perceive.

In a way, extended interview processes can take on a ritualistic nature reminiscent of historical initiation ceremonies or religious practices. The emphasis on a meticulous process can sometimes overshadow a more practical evaluation of actual capabilities. This mirrors some trends within world history in which religions became overly focused on strict dogma rather than human need.

Another troubling aspect is the potential for bias amplification. Research suggests that as interview rounds increase, so too does the chance that interviewers’ inherent biases can skew evaluations. This effect echoes historical processes of leadership selection where personal prejudices often played a major role in decision making.

The bureaucratic layers often introduced by HR departments can inadvertently slow things down and limit responsiveness. These systems, meant to ensure fairness and structure, can paradoxically create a situation where organizations struggle to adapt to rapid change. Much like the issues in ancient empires dealing with stagnation of innovation due to entrenched power, organizations can be slow to adapt and innovate.

Historically, hiring was often much more informal. Straightforward evaluations and demonstrations of skill were common. This makes us wonder if today’s overly-complex processes really provide a significant improvement in hiring results. This leads one to consider a more fundamental question: is excessive complexity necessarily correlated with higher quality of outcomes in hiring decisions?

Extended hiring processes, marked by multiple interview rounds, can also create what’s known as “analysis paralysis.” This occurs when the pursuit of complete information delays or prevents a decision, ultimately hindering productivity. This highlights a tension seen throughout world history and philosophy in the concepts of analysis and action.

Finally, it’s important to acknowledge that cultural norms regarding hiring are deeply entrenched. The preference for thorough evaluation may reflect a widespread social tendency toward meticulous vetting, comparable to the historical evaluation of individuals for social status or religious affiliation. Organizations trying to reform and improve their processes need to be aware of this and understand the entrenched cultural factors.

By recognizing these interconnected issues—from historical patterns to psychological tendencies and broader societal influences— organizations may be better equipped to rethink their approach to the hiring process. Streamlining procedures and placing a greater emphasis on practical evaluations may ultimately result in a more productive and adaptive organizational environment. This is something that all civilizations have to contend with over time.

Why 7 Interview Rounds May Signal Poor Decision-Making in Modern Organizations A Productivity Analysis – The Psychology of Sunk Cost Fallacy in Corporate Interview Processes

In the realm of corporate hiring, the sunk cost fallacy often exerts a subtle but powerful influence, particularly when interview processes stretch into excessive rounds. This psychological quirk compels decision-makers to continue investing in a recruitment process, even if it’s becoming unproductive, simply because significant time and effort have already been expended. Instead of objectively evaluating the current situation and the potential benefits of a candidate, they may cling to the past investments, failing to recognize that those past decisions don’t dictate the present or future outcomes. This can lead to organizations stubbornly clinging to outdated and possibly inefficient hiring procedures, potentially overlooking more suitable and modern approaches for attracting top talent.

Within the context of our broader examination of productivity in decision-making within organizations, the sunk cost fallacy provides a potent example of how ingrained biases can hinder effective judgment. It underscores the need for businesses to consciously evaluate their hiring practices, recognizing that clinging to tradition or past investments isn’t always the most productive course of action, particularly in a swiftly evolving work environment. Ultimately, it encourages a shift in perspective – recognizing that letting go of seemingly sunk costs can be a catalyst for more efficient and successful decision-making when it comes to talent acquisition.

The sunk cost fallacy, a mental quirk where we cling to past investments regardless of future potential, can seriously skew corporate hiring decisions, especially in drawn-out interview processes. Imagine a hiring manager who’s already spent weeks interviewing a candidate through multiple rounds. Even if red flags start popping up, the manager might struggle to abandon the process. This is due to a psychological tension—cognitive dissonance—where the manager’s mind clashes with the evidence in front of them. This internal conflict can blindside them to objective considerations, making for a suboptimal hiring decision.

Beyond the immediate issue, this fallacy also presents an opportunity cost. Every additional interview round means the organization isn’t looking at other potentially better candidates. It’s almost as if they’ve dug a hole for themselves and can’t see other potential solutions. This phenomenon, often seen in research where organizations are less likely to move on from a prospect if they’ve invested significantly in them, demonstrates how our bias towards the past blinds us to the future.

The issue worsens when you add the dynamic of social interaction. Having multiple interviewers creates a natural tendency towards groupthink, where consensus trumps objective assessment. It’s easy for opinions to get skewed by the cumulative time and effort invested in earlier interview rounds. This might lead to someone who wasn’t initially the top choice ultimately landing the job due to a shared desire to not “waste” all that effort.

It’s not just a hypothetical concern. Studies show that the cost of a hiring process can skyrocket with every extra round, sometimes exceeding the value of the new hire. The sunk cost effect, therefore, becomes a direct impediment to rational cost-benefit analysis. This isn’t entirely a new pattern, though. We see this throughout human history. Elites have long relied on involved initiation rites to filter out those deemed “unworthy”. In a sense, the elaborate interview process seems to be a modern version of this, potentially perpetuating old biases under the guise of modern efficiency.

The problem is rooted in a primal fear—fear of commitment. We find it hard to throw away our efforts, even if it’s the smartest course of action. This applies to the interviewers, who might feel a sense of ownership over a candidate they’ve already dedicated time to. It can lead them to justify overlooking shortcomings or inflate the perceived abilities of the individual in question.

Additionally, this can affect the overall atmosphere of the work environment. Candidates who have been subjected to lengthy and unfruitful interview processes are likely to have a negative view of the company, which can negatively influence the morale of the hired team. A complex interview process that devalues top talent risks creating a culture where exceptional individuals feel undervalued.

The difficulty in addressing this problem has a cultural element as well. The pervasive notion that thoroughness guarantees better results is deeply embedded in society. Changing that view can be a difficult task, as a deeply ingrained social norm will invariably breed resistance to even the most practical improvements.

The whole issue can be viewed through a philosophical lens as well. It’s a real-world illustration of the tension between gathering information and executing. Like in so many other aspects of life, it illustrates the human condition—we’re often torn between two conflicting approaches. Does optimal decision-making require an exhaustive understanding, or the ability to act quickly, efficiently, and effectively? The answer, likely, is a nuanced one, which has been the case throughout the course of human endeavors.

By taking all this into account—the psychological aspects, the potential economic costs, and the cultural norms—organizations can hopefully improve their hiring practices. Streamlining the interview process and focusing on practical skills evaluation can be more effective than over-reliance on the extensive interview round model. It’s something that all organizations and societies struggle with to a certain extent, and it will likely continue to be an active issue in our future as well.