Here's my approach, which may or may not be of interest.
All CVs are read by me -- presuming it is my budget -- and one other from the team; that team member is at liberty to discuss a CV with another if they wish, but ultimately it is their vote. Occasionally, we go back to the candidate for more info.
CVs are graded: yes, no, or maybe. Two yes-votes and the candidate gets an interview. No yes-vote and that's the end of it. All others, we discuss starting with a "defence" from the yes-voter. At the end, only those with two yes-votes get an interview.
(I always keep records of this process for later review for when we get it wrong.)
That's the sifting process.
The interview is then focussed on what we do and what the prospect believes they can bring to the party. The CV is rarely put on the table. They are at liberty to take the conversation wherever they want. They can ask whatever they want; it is made clear that there is no expectation that they know anything concrete about the business or how we work. Questioning, inquisitive minds are good.
I was in the interviewing process for a job last month, and jettisoned it because the interviewer/CEO was fixating on details from my resume rather than talking about subjects relevant to my career or technical expertise.
Going to aim for/hope for an interviewer that is an engineer or PM next time.
When interviewing candidates, I rely heavily on their resumes to check their honesty and skills. If somebody says they've spent the last 3 working in Python, then I'll ask them about Python, even if the position doesn't require it.
I prefer to quiz candidates on what they've done, and not just what they'll be asked to do. A truly good programmer who has masted several environments can always learn a new environment.
A truly good programmer can also coherently discuss technical subjects in detail and describe approaches to solving various problems, as well as express opinions and personal taste on those approaches.
Same thing happened to me recently. I find the interview goes much smoother and both parties feel more satisfaction about the interaction if the interview is more free-style where we talk about relevant interests, experiences, and skills.
I've had the same general experience with interviews. The more conversational it is, even if provided some structure via either the resume or some prepared questions, the better it usually goes.
All CVs are read by me -- presuming it is my budget -- and one other from the team; that team member is at liberty to discuss a CV with another if they wish, but ultimately it is their vote. Occasionally, we go back to the candidate for more info.
CVs are graded: yes, no, or maybe. Two yes-votes and the candidate gets an interview. No yes-vote and that's the end of it. All others, we discuss starting with a "defence" from the yes-voter. At the end, only those with two yes-votes get an interview.
(I always keep records of this process for later review for when we get it wrong.)
That's the sifting process.
The interview is then focussed on what we do and what the prospect believes they can bring to the party. The CV is rarely put on the table. They are at liberty to take the conversation wherever they want. They can ask whatever they want; it is made clear that there is no expectation that they know anything concrete about the business or how we work. Questioning, inquisitive minds are good.