The interview process was conducted remotely and included multiple stages: an initial conversation with the hiring manager, a follow-up interview with a U.S.-based counterpart, a technical exercise, and a panel interview. However, the overall planning and execution were highly disorganized, with a lack of clarity regarding the number of interviews required or whether an offer would be extended. The first interview was scheduled for 30 minutes, with an immediate notice of a "hard stop" at the 30-minute mark. This created a rigid and unwelcoming atmosphere, leaving a negative impression of both the interviewer and the company culture. Effective scheduling should allow for a meaningful discussion rather than rushing through the conversation. Despite being scheduled for a specific date, the second interview with the U.S. counterpart was not confirmed until the day before, even after follow-ups. Additionally, the wrong meeting link was initially provided, and a corrected link was sent just minutes before the session. This last-minute coordination failure caused unnecessary confusion and highlighted poor internal communication. Following the technical exercise, a panel interview was scheduled. However, the hiring manager was unexpectedly out of office during that week. The panel proceeded without him, and although a specific time had been agreed upon, the hiring manager rescheduled the interview two hours earlier on the same day—without prior notice. Assuming this was an error, I joined at the original time and was left waiting for 15 minutes before being admitted. The U.S.-based hiring manager then apologized for the delay, citing audio and headphone issues—an unprofessional oversight at this stage of the process. Additionally, the hiring manager began recording the session without asking for consent, which I found disrespectful. When I asked the team about their experiences, some members laughed (despite being muted), while the overall atmosphere felt cold and controlling, with the hiring manager observing the team rather than engaging in the discussion. After the hiring manager returned, I followed up for feedback. The response I received was mistakenly addressed to his own counterpart instead of me. When I pointed out the error, the only reply was a casual “my bad, indeed,” further reinforcing the lack of professionalism. Given the repeated missteps and lack of organization, this department (or company) raises significant concerns. Reviews from other candidates suggest similar patterns of disorganization and unprofessionalism. Proceed with caution.

I started the process with a phone screening from HR. I then met with a lead via Zoom. I then met with two other people, who are actually in the role, via Zoom. I then had a final interview with another lead. Yes, FIVE total separate interviews-- with no offer or any feedback as to why. This was the most vetting process, I've ever experienced. I understand how competitive the market is, but I do not understand the process in which this company recruits. I believe their decision had been made well before the 5th interview. My final interview felt very cold and kind of condescending. I've already had a technical aptitude interview and was under the impression that the "interview" with the final lead would be more of a get to know the team/company/role type meeting. It also was not stated by the recruiter that this would be another interview, but a "meeting". I was immediately asked multiple tech and behavioral questions, that I've already went through in the first four interviews. I did not feel there was any sort of engaging effort during this final interview, but more so "let's get this over with". I did not see any other candidate on Glassdoor with this process, so I'm eager to know why this was my experience.