Recruiter reached out proactively asking me to interview. I was already in the midst of several interviews and had one offer already, so I expressed concerns with timing. She said they can move quickly and sent me the first take-home: a PR review in GitHub for an API. It used some libraries and frameworks I wasn't familiar with, so I took my time and thoughtfully reviewed. The next day they reviewed my comments and wanted to move forward. I should note here I was told that if at any point the interviewers felt I wasn't performing well they would end the process early. The first live round was to discuss the PR, which I felt at the time went really well. They moved me forward to the next set of rounds, the first of which involved reviewing a system design doc in Notion. Like the PR, there were some concepts I didn't have prior experience with, but overall relatively straightforward. I spent a healthy amount of time reading over the design and adding plenty of comments and suggestions. The next round, similar to the first, reviewed my review of the doc. This one didn't go quite as smoothly, I'd say due to a mix of some unknowns on my part and the short turnaround, but I still felt decent about the discussions around my comments and suggestions. The next round, happening 30 minutes after the first, was supposed to be a product-focused interview. I joined the call and waited. After 15 minutes no one showed up. I messaged the recruiter as well as the previous interviewer asking if we were continuing, thinking maybe I hadn't done as well as I thought on the system design and were stopping the interview. A few minutes later (over 20 since the start of the meeting) I'm informed the original interviewer couldn't make it, and the replacement lost track of time. They asked if I could bump the third round scheduled for that evening and do the product round then. I agreed, even though this stretched my timeline. The interviewer seemed completely unprepared and flustered. He directed the conversation more-so around onboarding as a manager and balancing engineering with management. This was supposed to be a product-focused round, so I thought this was bizarre, but I let him direct. Content aside, I felt the conversation went well. Shortly after wrapping the recruiter confirmed this and said we'd continue with the final rounds the next day. I wake up in the morning to an email from the recruiter stating the final rounds are cancelled. The team regrouped late in the evening, and while they were impressed with my technical acumen, they decided I didn't demonstrate "customer centricity" in any of the interviews and thus did not want to move forward. I was pretty dumbfounded by this rationale. For one, the entire point of two of the three rounds was to evaluate my technical abilities. Even so, I distinctly provided feedback about customer impacts of implementation and design details in these rounds as these are of course important considerations. The third round, which was supposed to be product-focused, would have been a great opportunity to really showcase customer centricity, however the interviewer wanted to focus more on the ideal balance of IC/EM work for a manager joining the company. At no point was there any indication, explicit or implied, that any of the interviewers wanted me to dive deeper into this particular principle. They all pushed the conversation towards technicals with only a hint of product focus. Nothing in the interview prep materials stated that I should focus primarily on this principle. Everything pointed to my technical abilities being the most important aspect of these rounds. It's also ironic how non-customer-centric they were towards me as the candidate when they ghosted my scheduled round. I had read many of the reviews here on Glassdoor before starting this process. There were so many red flags, but I thought perhaps those were just poor candidates or one-off experiences. I can now say definitively after experiencing this company's way of working first-hand: do not waste your time. Thankfully I have other competitive offers at reputable companies to choose from, but I know many do not. Spend your time wisely. Find good companies who respect your time and prep you well for expectations. Clipboard Health is not one of them.

I was contacted by a recruiter about the position and we scheduled a time to discuss within a few days of the cold call. I did my due diligence and checked the GD review on this company and was a little hesitant as there are many negative reviews about the interview process and, in particular, for this role. However, I'm feeling that the criticism I am reading wouldn't be something that bothers me so much, so I proceed to accept the call. The screen with the recruiter went well; I liked the mission of the org, the recruiter was pleasant and knowledgable and I seemed to be a good fit. We discussed the next phase of the interview, which was to review a technical design document and provide input with the simple instruction being: review this technical design document just as you would as an engineering manager. At this point, I haven't spoken with anyone except the recruiter so I have very little to go off of. I got into the spirit of it and poured over the 16 page technical design design document. I've been doing these technical reviews for years, so this felt very natural and I expected that it would have gone well. I kept all of my feedback constructive, asked questions, didn't prescribe solutions and was quite thorough. After 8 days I received an email notification that they would not be proceeding but without any feedback as to why. I replied requesting feedback on the review so as to understand what it is that is not aligning with their expectations or needs. I have not received a reply to this email. Additionally, and worth calling out, is a note in the rejection email that I found particularly offensive and disheartening. They thanked me for the time I invested in the process but also stated: "I just wanted you to know that we don't take the time you've spent with us lightly. We've spent sufficient time on our end as well, reading, debating, and regrouping." Which seems a curious move to make, creating a false equivalency between the time invested by candidates in the interview process to get a job and employers getting paid to perform their job when evaluating candidates.