The Art Of Timing
The Art of Timing: How Many Stages Should an Interview Process Have and How Long Should It Take?
Job interviews are a crucial part of the hiring process. They allow employers to assess a candidate's qualifications, skills, and cultural fit within the organisation. However, the number of stages in an interview process and the time it takes can greatly influence a candidate's perception of a company and impact the hiring success. In this blog post, we'll delve into the ideal number of interview stages and the total time the process should take to strike a balance between thorough evaluation and candidate satisfaction.
The Number of Interview Stages
- The Initial Screening:
- Typically, the interview process begins with an initial screening. This can be a phone call, a video interview, or an online application form. Its purpose is to quickly assess if the candidate meets the basic job requirements.
- Ideally, the initial screening should be brief and focused on the most critical qualifications. This stage is crucial for weeding out unqualified candidates and should last around 30 minutes to an hour.
2. The First Interview:
- Following the initial screening, the first in-person or video interview allows for a more in-depth conversation and evaluation.
- The first interview should assess the candidate's skills and experience relevant to the job, typically lasting around 45 minutes to an hour.
3. Second Interview or Assessment:
- Depending on the position's complexity, a second interview or an assessment may be necessary. This stage should delve deeper into the candidate's abilities and provide an opportunity to evaluate their cultural fit.
- The second interview or assessment may range from 1 to 2 hours.
4. The Final Interview:
- For some roles, especially leadership or highly specialised positions, a final interview with senior management or key team members is vital. This interview should focus on ensuring that the candidate aligns with the company's values and long-term vision.
- A final interview can last around 1 to 2 hours.
The Total Time an Interview Process Should Take
The length of an interview process can significantly impact a candidate's experience and decision to accept an offer. It's crucial to strike a balance between thorough evaluation and a reasonable timeline. Here's a general guideline for the ideal total duration:
- Entry-Level Positions: The entire interview process for entry-level positions should ideally be completed within 1 to 2 weeks. Shorter timelines are preferred to keep candidates engaged and prevent them from accepting other offers.
- Mid-Level Positions: For mid-level roles, the process can extend to 2 to 3 weeks. This provides sufficient time to assess more experienced candidates while maintaining their interest.
- Senior and Executive Roles: High-level positions may require a more extended evaluation process, which can last 4 to 8 weeks or even longer. However, it's vital to ensure open communication with candidates during this time.
Benefits of a Well-Structured Interview Process
- Improved Quality of Hires: A well-structured interview process allows for a more comprehensive evaluation, resulting in higher-quality hires.
- Enhanced Candidate Experience: A streamlined process respects candidates' time and demonstrates the company's professionalism, which can improve its reputation and attract top talent.
- Reduced Time-to-Fill: A well-managed interview process can reduce the time it takes to fill a position, helping the company meet its staffing needs more efficiently.
The number of interview stages and the total time an interview process should take can vary based on the role and company culture. Striking the right balance is essential to ensure that the company attracts top talent while making efficient, quality hires. A well-structured interview process can be a valuable asset in your talent acquisition strategy, leading to long-term success and growth for your organisation.
There is a lot of confidence right now in finance. AI will fix reporting. AI will speed up forecasting. AI will improve insight. AI will free finance teams up to be more strategic. Some of that will be true. But there is an uncomfortable truth that rarely gets discussed. Most finance teams are not ready for AI. And AI is not the reason why. The illusion many finance leaders are buying into AI has become a convenient shortcut. A way to believe that technology will solve problems that are actually rooted in people, structure and decision making. If the tools are smart enough, the thinking will improve. If the dashboards are better, decisions will follow. If the output is faster, the function will become more strategic. That logic sounds attractive. It is also flawed. AI does not fix weak judgement. It does not fix unclear ownership. It does not fix poor challenge. It does not fix a finance team that lacks confidence or commercial understanding. It simply accelerates whatever already exists. Why AI exposes finance weaknesses rather than solving them In many organisations, finance already produces more information than the business can properly use. More reports have not led to better decisions. More data has not led to clearer strategy. More analysis has not led to better outcomes. AI increases volume, speed and sophistication. But it does not tell you: Which numbers actually matter What trade offs to make When to challenge a decision When to say no Those are human responsibilities. If a finance team struggles to influence decisions today, AI will not suddenly give it a stronger voice tomorrow. The real risk leaders are ignoring The real risk is not that AI replaces finance professionals. The real risk is that it exposes which finance roles never moved beyond production in the first place. As automation removes transactional work, the remaining roles become more exposed. They require: Judgement Commercial awareness Confidence Influence Accountability for decisions Some people step into that space naturally. Others retreat from it. AI does not create that divide. It reveals it. Where most organisations are getting this wrong Many businesses are investing heavily in tools while changing very little about: How finance roles are defined What finance people are hired for How performance is measured Where decision ownership sits So finance teams are asked to be more strategic without being hired, structured or rewarded to do so. That is not transformation. It is expectation inflation. Why hiring matters more than technology right now Two organisations can implement the same AI tools. One gets better decisions. The other gets faster confusion. The difference is not software. It is capability. The businesses seeing real value from AI are: Hiring people who can interpret and challenge outputs Building finance roles around decisions, not reports Developing commercial confidence, not just technical depth Being honest about who can step up and who cannot They understand that AI raises the bar. It does not lower it. The conversation finance leaders need to have The most important AI question for finance is not: What tools should we buy? It is: Do we have the people who can actually use this well? Because AI does not replace weak finance functions. It makes their weaknesses impossible to hide. And for leaders willing to face that honestly, that is not a threat. It is an opportunity.
Most finance transformations do not fail because of systems
Speed has become a badge of honour in recruitment