That strikes me as highly reflective of google’s position of power; from the employer’s perspective, the point where the diminishing returns are no longer worth it is related to the point where they’re losing too many applicants from interview exhaustion. If you’re not google, not offering the kind of pay and such that google does, your break-even point is likely much sooner.

Additionally, from the worker’s perspective, the only-3-interviews rule is an assertion of our power. And, as an added plus, if enough people adhere to it, it will shift that break-even point even for places like Google, and resist the shifting of that burden onto unpaid workers.

The question that raises from a process improvement perspective then is “were the first 3 rounds really effective tests?” Perhaps a better solution is not more interviews, but more focused interviews conducted by the people that actually have the knowledge and power to make the decision. (And if the knowledge and the power are divided among multiple people, another great improvement would be empowering the people with the knowledge.)

Yeah, it saves you money…by costing the prospective employee. There’s only so much we as employees can or should be willing to give up for free, and it’s 3 interviews.

I also question if more than that is really improving the quality of your hires. Far more often (100% of the time, in my experience), multiple interviews are more a symptom of bureaucracy; multiple managers insisting that they get to stick their fingers in the pie, rather than actually learning anything more meaningful about the candidate.

Never do more than 3 interviews. And that’s assuming they’re relatively short, maybe 1 hour apiece. Any more than that, and they don’t want you bad enough.

There are probably legitimate uses out there for gen AI, but all the money people have such a hard-on for the unethical uses that now it’s impossible for me to hear about AI without an automatic “ugggghhhhh” reaction.