I hate the modern interview loop as much as the next person, but from a business perspective why would you want to risk 30 days of nothing vs a few extra hours to verify?
We should fix the modern interview loop (very hard) but the idea we’d ever go back to one hour is kind of out there.
That is making the assumption that any time spent over the traditional 1 hour helps you confirm whether the candidate is performant or not. I dispute that assumption and figure any time outside of that initial hour makes a hiring mistake that much more expensive.
Calculate it this way. I can spend 3x 1 hour (3 people interviewing a candidate for 1 hour) and have a 60% chance of hiring a performant person. I could also spend 3x 6 hours and have about the same chance. When that 40% non-performant candidate shows up and I have to repeat the hiring cycle, It's significantly less expensive in both labor costs and opportunity costs for the 3x1 interview style than the 3x6 interview style.
This doesn't take into account all the talent that has no need or interest to go through a 3x6 interview process (I am one of them).
>the idea we’d ever go back to one hour is kind of out there.
Ya like I said, the industry just kinda does what it does, complains about not being able to find talent, and will never learn.
> I dispute that assumption and figure any time outside of that initial hour makes a hiring mistake that much more expensive.
Okay, sure - dispute it if you want. It doesn't change the fact that the industry seemingly collectively decided that 1 hour isn't a sufficient amount of time to gauge fit/effectiveness/etc.
My point to you is that given the above, you have to make a choice. Spending the extra few hours gives you some hopeful assurance of what you're getting.
I once again will note it's not a good system, but there is to date seemingly no widely agreed upon good system.
We should fix the modern interview loop (very hard) but the idea we’d ever go back to one hour is kind of out there.