Most companies claim they want to hire purely based on skills and experience. So why don’t they? Traditional hiring practices systematically disadvantage some and advantage others based on connections, demographics or even your name.
We’re here to change that.
Why should you do peer to peer interviews?
1. Because it helps you get a job.
The most powerful argument why a company should pay attention to you is that other people recommend you. Peer-to-peer interviewing gives you that. If you do well in a peer-to-peer interview, we can tell hiring companies that you're awesome, not because we say so, but because other experts like yourself say so.
2. Because you’re more than a CV or a LinkedIn profile.
Hiring companies are generally risk-averse. That’s why they look for candidates with X years of experience. They assume that past performance is a predictor of future success.
But you’re not like that, you want to grow. You want your next job to be better than the last one to have more responsibilities than the last one. Too bad, your LinkedIn profile did not have the right keywords, you’re rejected.
We think that’s a stupid way of doing things.
We’re solving this by telling companies to give you a chance, not because we think you’re good but because your peers think you’re good.
3. Because you want to make interviewing more fair for everyone.
Traditional interviewing puts too much power in the hands of of a single individual, a recruiter, a hiring manager, or someone in HR. Aside from the fact that any individual can be biased (read more about that here), they might reject a candidate just because they're tired or having a bad day. That’s just wrong.
We’re solving this problem by doing multiple mini interviews with different interviewers. We’re also addressing bias by making sure that the interviewer pool is representative of the candidate pool. <- now it starts to make sense why we use candidates as interviewers, right?
4. Everyone gets feedback.
This one is pretty self explanatory, no more ghosting.
How we ensure fairness?
We have several systems in place to make sure the final outcome of interviews is fair
- We monitor interviews very closely for any kind of inappropriate or unfair behavior.
- We manually review interview videos
- We use AI-powered cheat- and bias-detection to alert us potential problems
- We create and report interviewer scores for every participant. If you try to cheat your interviewer score will be low which will affect your overall score. So everyone has an incentive to be fair.
Is Swyg collaborative or competitive?
In practice Swyg interviews are a very collaborative experience. Candidates are applying for a range of roles so the people you meet are not your competition. The best way to improve the lives of candidates is if candidates work together. We see this in real sessions all the time. If anything, people tend to be too nice to each other and we have to correct reviews that are too positive. :)
Swyg is not for everyone.
We get that what we’re doing is a radical departure from what companies and candidates are used to. But it works.
That said, there are people that may not be comfortable with this. And to be fair, some people do benefit from the inequalities that exist in a traditional hiring process.
In the end, our objective is not to build a system that offends no one. Our objective is to build a system that helps the people that need it the most.