Frequently in this industry, we encounter extensive interview procedures spanning 4-6 weeks. Such prolonged processes risk losing exceptional candidates to other offers. My aim with Cubes' hiring approach was to condense the timeline to just 2 weeks, while ensuring we gleaned the necessary insights for informed hiring decisions. To achieve this, I introduced a streamlined 3-step technical evaluation process:

1. Hiring Manager Screen

2. Portfolio Review

3. Live Whiteboarding Exercise.

To guarantee an equitable assessment of candidates and to position them for success throughout the process, I ensured transparency by clearly outlining expectations for each stage. Additionally, I equipped all interviewers with a comprehensive scoring rubric to promote fairness in candidate evaluation.

The initial phase of the technical evaluation for a design position at Cube involves a 45-minute hiring manager screen. During this interview, my objective is to delve deeper into the candidate's background, motivations for seeking employment, and their approach to design, planning, and conflict resolution.

For a glimpse into the types of questions I typically pose during interviews with Senior Design candidates, feel free to review a sample set here.

The portfolio review comprises a 30-minute panel-style interview with members of our product team, consisting of a product manager, a front-end developer, and the head of design. During this session, the candidate is allocated 10-15 minutes to present a selected piece from their portfolio.

The panel evaluates the presentation based on various criteria including:

1. Planning & research

2. UX design & methodologies

3. UI, visual, & interaction design

4. Design rationale

5. Business impact

6. Learnings

Following the presentation, the panel engages in a 15-minute period for follow-up questions pertaining to the showcased work.

All candidates are assessed using a comprehensive scoring rubric linked to the aforementioned criteria, accessible here.

The primary objective of this segment of the interview is to gauge the candidate's ability to articulate and present their work effectively and succinctly.

Gaining the insights necessary for your team can be difficult with a take-home design exercise. Some candidates may invest an extensive amount of time refining their submissions, while others might limit themselves to a specific timeframe. Consequently, you risk making an inaccurate hiring decision if one candidate devotes substantially more time to the challenge, making their outcome appear superior.

My objective with the whiteboarding exercise is to assess a candidate's problem-solving ability within a defined timeframe. This approach ensures a fair evaluation and focuses on the candidate's real-time problem-solving skills.

Candidates receive access to a shared Figjam file several days before the exercise. Once the exercise begins, they are presented with a specific scenario to solve. Internal participants are briefed on the scenario's outline and their roles, setting them up for success as subject matter experts (SMEs) and fostering interaction with the candidate.

Throughout the 45-minute exercise, candidates work on the given scenario, leveraging the provided Figjam file and engaging with internal participants to gather insights. Following the exercise, candidates have the opportunity to present any additional rationale, while our team can pose additional questions.

Please refer to the sample assets below for a deeper understanding of this process:

1. Figjam File

2. Exercise Outline

3. Scoring Rubric