The interview process at DS was by far the most extensive and time-consuming I’ve ever experienced. Over the course of two months, I participated in 12 separate interviews, none of which grouped similar roles together. The process included an initial phone screen with both the recruiter and the hiring manager, followed by six back-to-back on-site interviews over the span of three hours. Afterward, I had an additional interview with the hiring manager’s boss, a Senior Director. To cap it off, there were three more interviews with the EVP of Operations, the Head of HR, and the EVP/CTO of Technology. Even the major tech companies I’ve worked for only required three interviews, with the hiring manager having full authority to make the hiring decision. DS’s process felt particularly drawn out and excessive in comparison. While I thought the sheer volume of interviews and the repetition of questions were excessive, I genuinely enjoyed my conversations with the team. Everyone I met was welcoming and positive. The hiring manager was excellent, and I could see how working with them and their team would be an incredible opportunity. Ultimately, the feedback I received was overwhelmingly positive. I got 11 "yeses" from everyone I interviewed with, but the CTO ultimately said no, and I did not receive an offer. In the end, I believe it worked out for the best. If the CTO can disregard the unanimous approval of 11 team members who took the time to meet with me, it calls into question the value of the entire process. If the company operates this way, it would be more efficient to have the CTO conduct interviews first, before putting anyone through such a lengthy process. It undermines the hiring manager’s authority and suggests that teams are not empowered to make decisions.