3 stages - recruiter (standard), w/ manager, the big round. Big round is a case testing your product knowledge followed by 4 1on1s Recruiter will give full detail of each round.

This was for a contract role and the process was a bit secretive in terms of no one could tell me what the process would be (ie how many rounds). The first interview was with the Hiring Manager who gave me 2 huge red flags. One was when she answered a question I had about management style and they started to answer that she's been "in trouble" with how she speaks to people but then caught themself before they could continue. Second flag came when they asked me to explain what a Project Manager does because they found that "several people she's worked with don't seem to understand the role". That to me makes me think they are the one with some really specific wishes/needs/wants to what PMs do that the majority of the industry doesn't agree to. Keep in mind this is for a $90K /year, IC role. I made it to 2 rounds and was told there would be a 3rd round and dropped out. That was also a red flag because who knows how many rounds there were. The fact that there's so many rounds for this dead end, contract, IC $90K role combined with the other flags makes me think this is fairly toxic environment where your manager will treat this like Devil Wears Prada.

1. HR screen 2. Hiring manager chat 3. Take home case study 4. Live review of case study with committee 5. 3-4 30 Minute 1:1s In total about 8-10 hour time commitment. There was definitely misalignment between HR in assigning the case study + the committee that evaluated it. Whereas HR framed it as a way to get to know how you think and evaluate problems, the hiring committee was keen to ask very targeted and specific questions on the case study, as it related to their business. They seemed to ding the candidate for not being able to get way into the weeds in the that regard. The interviewers themselves were some of the most abrasive and ineffective individuals I've encountered in any interview process. The questions were of the rapid fire and not well tailored to cull information from the candidate. Almost as if they had asked ChatGPT "give me a bunch of questions off of which I can form an interview rubric" and were keen to work through the entirety of the resulting list; at the expense of cutting off almost every answer. The interviewers' times were very precious; letting me know how busy they are, and not leaving more than 1-2 minutes for questions at the end before cutting the meeting at time. Overall, I appreciated the process insofar as it only had me invest 8 hours of my time, in order to save me a whole lot of grief down the road had I ultimately moved forward. I ended up rescinding my application.