Streamlining the Hiring Process

Did you know most Director+ hires in big tech never even apply for the role? Here’s the playbook hiring managers don’t tell you. I’ve talked to hiring managers at Meta, Google, Amazon, and Microsoft, and here’s the truth: You can’t just land a Director+ role, even with years of experience under your belt. It’s about understanding their playbook and playing the right game. Here’s how you can do it: — 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗟𝗼𝗻𝗴 𝗚𝗮𝗺𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗚𝗲𝘁𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗥𝗲𝗰𝗿𝘂𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗱 Most successful Director+ candidates don’t apply cold. They’re recruited. Here’s what that means: Hiring managers trust internal networks more than any recruiting pipeline for such roles. Example: → A Google Director “intentionally” spent two years writing blog posts about scaling engineering teams (which Google values), which even caught their hiring manager’s attention, and he got hired. Actionable Steps: → Focus on showcasing your expertise in high-impact areas like scaling, decision-making, and cross-functional leadership. → Build relationships within your industry before you even think about applying for a role. — 𝗕𝘂𝗶𝗹𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗥𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁 𝗧𝘆𝗽𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗳𝗶𝗹𝗲 Your profile is your first impression and it needs to scream scope, scale, and credibility. What This Means: Hiring managers want to see specific evidence of your impact. Example: → A Meta Director highlighted their experience leading initiatives at scale: "When we hit 100M users, I wrote about it. When we had a major outage, I spoke at conferences." Actionable Steps: → Update your LinkedIn with quantifiable results: team size, budget, user growth, or revenue impact. → Publicly share your work — updates, blog posts, talks, and even internal wins (if possible). — 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗔𝗿𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗜𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗶𝗲𝘄 They don’t just assess what you’ve done; they also assess how you think and lead. Three ways to win: 𝗥𝗲𝗳𝗿𝗮𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗬𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗦𝘁𝗼𝗿𝗶𝗲𝘀 Your stories need to shift from execution to strategy. → Example: Instead of “I led a team to redesign our app,” frame it as: "I identified mobile as a strategic gap, grew a 50-person mobile team, and drove 60% of company revenue from our mobile-first strategy." 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗗𝗮𝘁𝗮 𝗦𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘆 Numbers matter but not just any numbers. Example: "Grew the team from 20 to 100 while reducing time-to-hire by 40%" stands out more than product-level metrics like engagement rates. 𝗛𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝗧𝗲𝘀𝘁 You’ll face intentionally tough scenarios to test how you handle ambiguity and pushback. → Example: One Amazon candidate was grilled about a delayed launch. He stayed calm, explained his reasoning, and stuck to data-driven answers and got the job! — If you want the full guide, check out the comments!

Too many interviewers take an adversarial stance in interviews... trying to knock candidates off balance. But how many companies want to build an "adversarial" culture? How many companies knock their employees off balance? I'd hope none! You get a lot more signal on how someone will actually perform at your company when your hiring process and your interviews are reflective of your culture. 1. Stop Making People Perform Unpaid Consulting Long take-home assignments are free work. Replace them with 30-minute exercises or pay them for their time. You'll see real skills without exploiting people's time. And yes, pay them for their time. It's literally work. 2. Run Work Sessions, Not Interrogations Your top performer probably bombed interviews at five other companies. Why? Because great workers aren't always great performers. They're too busy doing actual work to rehearse stories about "a time they showed leadership." Run actual work sessions instead. You'll catch brilliance that interview theater misses. 3. Tell Candidates Your Salary Range First Discovering you're 40% apart on comp after 3 interviews wastes everyone's time. Post the range in the JD. Say it in the recruiter screen. Stop asking "what are your expectations?" when you already have a budget. The power games around salary hurt your best candidates most - they're usually the ones too polite to negotiate hard. 4. Stop Ghosting Rejected Candidates You demanded references, portfolio samples, five hours of their time. Then you disappear. Send real feedback within 48 hours. One specific thing they could improve. The candidate you reject with respect today sends you their talented friend tomorrow. The one you ghost? They're writing your Glassdoor review. 5. Define Your Interview Process Upfront Tell candidates exactly what to expect: "One phone screen, one technical assessment, one culture interview." Share the timeline and format upfront. Then stick to it. No surprise additions except in rare circumstances. No "actually, we need you to meet three more people." Candidates are juggling multiple opportunities and using PTO. Respect their time by being transparent about yours. Your interview process is a preview of your culture. If you run adversarial interviews, you're selecting for people who thrive in toxic cultures. The evidence is clear: work samples beat behavioral questions every time. You're not running military selection. You're building a team. Interview like it.

I have sat on GCC executive interview panels where six people were in the room: the person who actually made the hiring decision wasn't one of them. Most senior candidates expect a Western format on their first GCC interview: three or four people on the panel, two or three rounds, a structured debrief at the end. The reality is panels of five, six or seven, processes that run to four to six rounds over two or three months, and a final decision often made later, in conversations the candidate never sees. Two things separate the candidates who get offers from the ones who don't. First: preparing for a process that is cumulative across rounds, not a series of standalone interviews. Second: preparing distinct moments for each panel member; a specific line you want each of them to repeat to the actual decision-maker. Most candidates do neither. After two decades on executive interview panels in Riyadh, Dubai, Abu Dhabi and London, I've written up all five things that decide GCC executive interview outcomes at director and VP level. Full article in comments. If you've sat on either side, which of the five caught you out first? P.S. Preparing for a director or VP interview in the GCC? DM "Interview Strategy" for a free 15-minute strategy call. #ExecutiveCareers #GCC

How long does it really take to learn a new tech and build something practical? For most good engineers: about two weeks. Not years of “deep experience.” Not a laundry list of buzzwords. Just the ability to read docs, get hands-on, and adapt quickly. Let's say, Maya joins a team. She’s never used Kafka and is suddenly tasked with building a Kafka related feature. Day 1 → spins up the quickstart, sends her first test message. Day 3 → builds a simple producer/consumer. Day 7 → wires it into the app behind a feature flag. Day 10 → ships the first version in a test env, adds observability, fixes edge cases. No heroics. No magic. Just focus, iteration, and judgment. Now imagine Maya in a standard hiring process. ❌ Rejected because she has “only 2 years of experience" and does not have Kafka on resume. ❌ Rejected because her DSA solution wasn’t “optimal enough.” That’s the disconnect. Day to day engineering is about: - Reading docs, RFCs, issues. - Mapping new ideas onto known patterns. - Building, breaking, fixing. - Adding observability. - Communicating trade-offs clearly. That’s 80% of the work. But interviews? - Puzzle solving under a stopwatch. - Trivia about tools you may never use. - Arbitrary year-count checklists. We end up filtering for puzzle solvers instead of builders. This isn’t just bad for candidates. It shows up in products, code quality and more. Many “star products” of big tech weren’t grown inside the carefully engineered hiring pipeline, but rather acqui-hired. Why? Because the pipeline optimizes for avoiding bad hires, not for spotting people who can learn fast and ship. When we can’t recognize talent, we buy the outcomes later. At 10x the cost. A better interview loop might look like this: 1. Doc Dive: Candidate reads a short spec + docs, produces a one-page plan. 2. Guided Build: Pair on a small feature in a scaffolded repo. Googling/Prompting allowed. 3. Change Request: Introduce a new constraint, watch how they adapt. 4. Retro: Ask what they’d do with two more days. Signals: comprehension, iteration speed, trade-offs, clarity of thought. This mirrors real work far better than whiteboards and trivia. Hiring shapes culture. Hire for puzzles → we get puzzle-driven engineering: ceremony-heavy, slow, fearful of production. Hire for learning → we get shipping culture: fast loops, resilient systems, products that evolve with users. If it takes two weeks for a capable engineer to learn and ship, then hiring should be about finding two-week learners. We should stop pretending the job is a quiz show. The real job is messy, contextual, and iterative. The companies that figure this out won’t just hire better. They’ll ship better. If engineers can ramp up in weeks, why do companies still gate them with years-long checklists and puzzle games? Is it caution? Legacy? Or simply a blind spot in how we define “talent”?

I've often heard HR professionals & bosses express frustration about not receiving enough applicants, even after investing in platforms like LinkedIn's "Easy Apply." The intention behind "Easy Apply" is to encourage applications by simplifying the process. However, when candidates are required to complete multiple steps, sometimes up to six (yeah! Crazy right), even after uploading their CV or resume, it becomes a deterrent. Data supports this concern. Lets see… According to SHRM, the candidate drop-off rate for individuals who start but don't complete an online application is a staggering 92%. Additionally, a study highlighted by Prevue HR found that 60% of job seekers abandon online applications due to their length or complexity. This indicates that overly complicated application processes can significantly reduce the pool of potential candidates! Some might argue 🤨 that a lengthy application process filters out less serious applicants. However, this perspective is increasingly outdated. Talented candidates often view such processes as indicative of a company that is: 1. Behind the times 2. Lacking clarity 3. Overly bureaucratic 4. Distrustful of applicants Consequently, organisations risk losing top talent and may end up with applicants who are merely willing to endure the cumbersome process, rather than those who are the best fit. Leading companies are now focusing on streamlining their application procedures. By reducing unnecessary steps and only collecting essential information, they not only minimize potential biases but also enhance the candidate experience. Research from Appcast shows that shortening the application process to five minutes or less can increase conversion rates by up to 365% !! Yes! As we move further into 2025, it's imperative for companies to reevaluate and simplify their application processes. By doing so, they can attract a broader and more qualified talent pool, ensuring they don't miss out on the best candidates due to an overly complex application system. Do reach out if you wish to have chat on this!

If your job application process has a higher drop-off rate than your website funnel… it’s time for a shift! I’ve reviewed hundreds of job posts lately, and most don’t need a rewrite, They need a mindset shift! We’ve nailed digital marketing funnels everywhere.... clear CTAs, A/B testing landing pages, removing unnecessary steps in e-commerce orders.... But when it comes to recruitment, many companies still expect top talent to: ⚠️ Rewrite their experience manually! ⚠️Answer 20 “motivational” and "technical" questions! ⚠️Spend 45 minutes applying, just to get ghosted?! Let’s be honest, the best candidates aren’t lazy They’re tired! Tired of repetitive, outdated hiring journeys that ignore everything we’ve learned in UX and marketing. And the irony is that companies say they “can’t find the right people” But they haven’t even talked to them!!! because the ATS filtered them out first. We’ve optimized for automation, not human connection. The truth is If you really want great applicants, treat them like valuable users: ✔️A/B test your job descriptions, are they clear or just corporate soup? ✔️Track drop-offs, where do people give up? ✔️Cut the noise, move non-critical questions to interviews ✔️Fix your autofills, and don’t make them fill out their resume after uploading it!! 🚨And most importantly: put real humans back in the hiring loop. You didn’t fail to attract great talent, You just buried them under 12 dropdown menus and 9 mandatory fields. ❓️What’s the most frustrating part of job applications today? #RecruitmentMarketing #DigitalMarketing #ATS #ABTesting #hiring

Back in June we went to Alex Hormozi's two day business workshop And biggest takeaway was that we were not spending enough time focused on the boring work We were chasing too many big ideas instead of focusing on the fundamentals One of those fundamentals was our recruiting and hiring process Here is our current hiring process that has allowed us to decrease time spent hiring new roles by 50% while evaluating 3x more candidates This is the same process I used to hire 7 new roles in the past two weeks managing 100% of the process while having time to focus on my other priorities The roles hired: 1x Sr. TikTok Shop Strategist 3x Influencer marketing & Community manager 1x TikTok Shop Coordinator 1x Influencer Coordinator 1 Influencer Operations Coordinator Our process: 1. We got set up with LinkedIn Recruiter This has saved me so much time and the quality of candidates has drastically improved 2. Post a job using one of our open job slots instead of using linkedin's pay per click job post 3. Use recruiter to filter people that have the exact experience we need 4. Mass invite them to open jobs 5. Send mass messages + automated follow ups using recruiters CRM directing candidates to go through a video interview process using MyInterview Instead of reviewing applications one by one and sending individual messages to each candidate, We can do a first pass at their job history and mass message all qualified candidates + schedule automated follow ups with one click This step also replaced our first round interview We set up 5-6 interview questions that each candidate answers related to the role 6. Watch videos interviews and create a short list of our top 10-15 candidates and set up first round interviews 7. Invite top 3 candidates to a second interview to go deeper on culture related questions 8. Ask for 5 references from each candidate (front door references) Schedule calls with each reference and have template questions that I ask 9. Reach out to 1-2 back door references - these are people that weren't included but had a working relationship with the candidate (usually one of the previous managers at company they no longer work at) 10. Make an offer LinkedIn recruiter + video interviews have given me more time back to dedicate to reference checks to make sure we're hiring the best possible candidate Before Hormozi, our recruiting and hiring process was embarrassing We mostly hired out of convenience and we paid the price for it I've completely cut out chasing big ideas to focus 100% of my time on the "boring" work The best part is that I love recruiting now Theres nothing boring about finding the best people to join our mission Lmk your best interview questions below

Stop hiring for “culture fit.” It’s bias with better branding. Culture isn’t about “liking” someone or feeling chemistry. Culture is how work gets done. Hire for that. Here’s the playbook I teach the leaders I work with: 𝟭. 𝗕𝘂𝗶𝗹𝗱 𝗮 𝗛𝗶𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗕𝗹𝘂𝗲𝗽𝗿𝗶𝗻𝘁 𝗯𝗲𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗺𝗲𝗲𝘁 𝗰𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗲𝘀 • Mission: why the role exists • Outcomes: what success looks like in 6–12 months • Competencies: the behaviours that deliver those outcomes    If you can’t write this in plain English, you’re not ready to hire. 𝟮. 𝗔𝘀𝘀𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗰𝘂𝗹𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗿𝗲𝗲 𝗮𝘅𝗲𝘀 • Fit — will they thrive in how you work today • Add — will they strengthen the team with new perspective • Adapt — can they grow with where you’re going You’re not looking for “same.” You’re looking for “effective today, better tomorrow.” 𝟯. 𝗔𝘀𝗸 𝗳𝗲𝘄𝗲𝗿, 𝗯𝗲𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗾𝘂𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝘁𝗶𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗼𝘂𝘁𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲𝘀 • “Tell me about a time you owned X end-to-end. What changed for the business?” • “What’s the toughest disagreement you resolved at work. How did you decide?” • “Walk me through a decision you made with incomplete data. Why that path?” Drive depth. Push for actions, trade-offs, measurable impact. 𝟰. 𝗠𝗮𝗸𝗲 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝘀𝗰𝗼𝗿𝗲𝗰𝗮𝗿𝗱 𝗱𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗷𝘂𝗱𝗴𝗶𝗻𝗴 Tie every question to outcomes and competencies. Use a 1–4 scale with no middle option. Require 1–2 lines of evidence per score. 𝟱. 𝗥𝘂𝗻 𝗮 𝗰𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗻 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗶𝗲𝘄 𝗳𝗹𝗼𝘄 0–5 min: set context, create safety, invite their agenda 5–10: frame mission, outcomes, how you work 10–45: high-signal questions, go deep rather than wide 45–55: their questions 55–60: reflect key signals, outline next steps 𝟲. 𝗗𝗲𝗯𝗿𝗶𝗲𝗳 𝘁𝗼 𝗱𝗲𝗰𝗶𝗱𝗲, 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝘁 Everyone submits scorecards first. Start with evidence, not opinions. HiPPO (highest paid person’s opinion) speaks last. 𝟳. 𝗘𝘃𝗮𝗹𝘂𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗶𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗼𝘂𝘁𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗼𝗼𝗺 How they prepare, schedule, follow up, and clarify. Those are your culture signals. Treat every touchpoint as data. If you want managers to hire this way, train them. At School of Hiring, we turn this into simple systems. At Klareda, we power these systems with AI. Because clarity is half the problem solved.

📱 My phone’s been blowing up lately—colleagues on both sides of the hiring game are venting about the same thing. Job seekers can’t land roles, and hiring managers can’t find people who actually stay. About half of my network who were job-hunting have found something, but the other half are still stuck in the grind. Meanwhile, companies tell me that even when they do make a hire, retention is a nightmare—new employees are bouncing within six months. The disconnect is real: companies are hiring, candidates are applying, but something is clearly broken. Traditional hiring—bloated job descriptions, ATS black holes, and never-ending interview rounds—is failing everyone. So, what needs to change? 🔄 Here’s what I’ve seen work: ✅ Ditch the ATS Dependence – Get back to human recruiting instead of relying on keyword filters. ✍️ Fix Job Descriptions – Make them clear, real, and relevant—cut the jargon. 🤝 Prioritize Personal Connections – Hiring managers should actively engage instead of passively posting. 🎯 Focus on Skills, Not Just Titles – Look at what candidates can actually do, not just where they’ve been. ⏳ Speed Up the Process – The best talent won’t wait around for a four-week approval cycle. 💬 Improve the Candidate Experience – Give real feedback and make the process transparent. Here’s a real-world fix I put in place: At a previous company, the hiring pipeline was a mess—ATS filters blocked great candidates, and the process dragged on. I introduced a referral-first hiring approach, tapping employees’ networks before posting publicly. We also replaced multiple early-stage screenings with a 30-minute call with the hiring manager. 📉 Time-to-hire dropped 35% 🎯 Quality of hires improved—better fits, fewer regrets 📈 Retention rates increased—candidates knew exactly what they were signing up for 🔑 Bottom line: Hiring is broken, but it doesn’t have to be. The best hires come through real connections, not algorithms. What’s been your biggest hiring (or job search) frustration lately? Drop a comment 👇 #Hiring #Recruiting #JobSearch #TalentStrategy #HR #FutureOfWork

I recently spoke with a hiring manager who had screened over 30 candidates for their open Sr. Scientist position. He was shocked by the response when the job posting went live—over 300 applications in the first 48 hours. To manage the overwhelming volume, he started by selecting the top 10 resumes and screened those candidates. From that group, he chose 2 to move forward for interviews with his team. Both candidates performed well, and onsite interviews were scheduled for two weeks later. One candidate accepted another job offer during that time. The other attended the interview and gave their presentation, but the team had reservations and decided to continue the search. Determined to improve the process, the hiring manager expanded his efforts. This time, he shortlisted the top 20 resumes. He advanced 4 candidates to meet with his team and invited 3 to a final interview—this time within a week. Despite his efforts, the challenges persisted. One candidate accepted another job offer before the final interview. Of the two remaining, both gave their presentations, and the team decided to extend an offer to their top choice. It took 3 days to get the offer approved by management.The candidate requested a few days to consider the offer. Two days later, they informed the hiring manager that they had accepted another offer with a $20k higher salary. When they turned to the second-choice candidate, she was no longer interested. After waiting two weeks for a decision, she had received a promotion. The hiring manager was back to square one after reviewing hundreds of resumes, conducting 30 phone screens, 6 team interviews (with 4-5 employees per session), and 3 final presentations (involving 6-7 employees). Despite all this effort, no hire was made. Total Cost: He had no idea. Moral of the Story: Speed, communication, market intelligence and decisive action are critical. Candidates have options, and delays—whether in interviews or approvals—can cost you top talent. Streamlining your hiring process and prioritizing quick, transparent decision-making can make all the difference in securing the right hire.