Guter Ablauf mit klaren Voraussetzungen und auch klaren Antworten und next steps. Deshalb war es umso frustrierender, danach überhaupt keine Antwort mehr zu bekommen. Wirklich beschämend und nicht OK, so kann man Kandidaten nicht behandeln.

3 rounds, 5 interviews total. Recruiter, hiring manager, hiring manager plus two other peers. Standard interview questions and not much surprises. All of the interviews were on Microsoft teams and were under an hour.

Recently, I attended an interview for a senior-level position at Medtronic. While the first round was conducted with professionalism and maturity, the feedback from the second round left me puzzled. The interviewer acknowledged my strong technical, organizational, and communication skills but rejected me based on two reasons: I had extensive experience working in Agile projects but lacked exposure to traditional project management. My financial skills were deemed not fully aligned with the role. This raises an important concern. Does this mean a highly technical individual, proficient in numerous tools and programming languages, cannot adapt to new frameworks or learn financial nuances specific to the role? It seems there was a lack of preparation and understanding from the interviewer’s side. To ensure a fair and effective hiring process, I urge Medtronic to train its interviewers to adhere to basic interview ethics, such as: Thoroughly reviewing the candidate’s profile beforehand. Clearly understanding the team and role they are hiring for. Evaluating candidates comprehensively, beyond the limited scope of the job description. In my case, the interviewer openly admitted to not fulfilling steps #1 and #2. Disclaimer: This feedback is not motivated by my rejection in the second round. I have faced rejection multiple times throughout my career. However, this is only the second instance where I felt compelled to provide constructive feedback to the organization.