Iím curious what others have experienced in regards to non traditional interview formats and your opinions of these formats?
One small company I worked for put candidates through a 3-4 hour verbal interview and then a written portion.
The written portion was simply a different perspective on the personís skills. It asked for a few definitions and then to write tests for a simple GUI.
At first, I personally disliked this written section because when I interviewed there was no advance warning (despite having asked) and it was not reviewed (as I found out later) unless the verbal interview went poorly.
After being placed in the position of setting up interviews I looked at this with different eyes. First, I informed people that there would be a verbal interview and then a written portion. Second, it did provide a different perspective of the candidate Ė some could talk the talk and not come up with any written answers. Others didnít verbally interview well but wrote 10 pages of tests for the simple GUI. This information about was then shared with the panel interviewing and all information was then passed on to HR.
I went to an interview where afterwards, I was placed infront of a PC that wouldn't power up and asked to fix it (the power to the motherboard had been disconnected). I wasn then given an excel task and a word task to complete.
The tasks were very simple and as a result I was left with a poor impression of the company. We'd had a good, technical discussion during the interview that I thought went well, and then suddenly I was asked to do a number of trivial tests.
I didn't go to the second interview; if the tasks were an indication of the role or of the level they expected me to work at, then I knew I wasn't a good fit.
I wonder if they tests were designed to not only weed out the incapable, but also to deter the over capable who might get bored.