> rather than some half-assed assessment of me as a person
> made in an interview.
Any judgement made in a 45-minute (or less!) interview is going to be half-assed. That's the unfortunate way of the world. How do you think people should interview?
(Genuinely curious; I do interviews, and I think I do pretty well, but it's difficult to honestly examine one's own methods without feedback.)
If I may interject, I think in most cases it's much, much better to use a network of connections rather than random walk-ins. You're much more likely to get someone that not only performs well, but also fits in well with your company's personalities.
If you have to interview strangers, I think it's good to inquire into their technical background until you have ample confidence in their technical abilities, and take the rest of the time to discuss career and company goals, personalities, hobbies, etc., in a lax and non-rushed manner. I'd invite the candidate back for a follow-up interview and talk more and then invite him to work out of your office for a few days (with pay, of course).
I think it's much better to have a relaxed and friendly decorum and perform a series of informal "interviews" because you'll learn a lot more about the candidate if he feels confident and open than if he's rushed to answer a bunch of silly logic puzzles and give diatribes on his five-year life plan.
If I may interject, I think in most cases it's much, much better to use a network of connections rather than random walk-ins. You're much more likely to get someone that not only performs well, but also fits in well with your company's personalities.
It is possible that this person is being interviewed by Google as a result of a referral by another employee within the Google, or even a referral from the hiring manager themselves.
Unless what you mean is that a hiring manager only consider people whom he and every other potential interviewer already know before the interview process even begins. The odds of ending up with such an arrangement at a place the size of Google, or even a place 1/100th the size of Google, seem insanely remote.
Someone on an interview loop at a large organization is bound to not know you from every other candidate who walks in the door. Even with phone interviews, odds are they call people based on factors entirely other than "do they know this person?" The best he may know about you is that some other person in the organization referred you, but it is not obvious whether they'll appreciate knowing this or be pissed off that their objectivity is now screwed. Some interviewers really prize trying to be as objective as possible in interviews, because interviews have a habit of being horribly imprecise anyway. But then, so do referral from J. Random Employee ("I have this cousin who's really good with computers; he helped me setup Outlook and everything. We should hire him a as software engineer.")
But then, maybe that is your point. If a company ends up at a size where they can't rely on connections, they're too big already.
Any judgement made in a 45-minute (or less!) interview is going to be half-assed. That's the unfortunate way of the world. How do you think people should interview?
(Genuinely curious; I do interviews, and I think I do pretty well, but it's difficult to honestly examine one's own methods without feedback.)