I mean, a "bad hire" with the consulting/open source shop where I did a lot of interviewing & hiring was something pretty specific. A bad hire where I am right now is something pretty specific.
Too much theory and not enough actionable advice.
You know what. I'm just gonna talk candidates 30 minutes about them, us, me, the company (just talk, not any sort of test). Then I'll ask it to write a program to print number from 1 to 10 (that will be the test). And finally flip a coin before I take a decision (that's the randomness).
I'm pretty sure it follows none of the good practises or advise out there. Yet I'm confident that this is a process that has a low risk of accepting bad hires and a low risk of filtering good hires. =)
If you want some specific feedback for your team, please reach out to me on Twitter. I'm always thrilled to talk to people about process and organizational development. I'd love to chat with you about actionable ideas for your specific need.
Hence my message. Talking about his past and future career, mine and the company's plan is the best thing for me to do, because I'm pretty that the other interviewers have not talked much about that, if at all.
And I'm confident that the hardcore technical interviews have been done. They don't need me to make it harder, except for a few select senior candidates. A for loop in a few languages written on the resume is enough (and it's fun for candidates who have "assembly") :D