The interview process was straightforward and short. The company was starting a new project so there wasn’t a lengthy process at the time. There were 2-3 rounds of interviews with corporate and the property team.

A three month process that should have taken three weeks. Two standard phone screenings. One with a recruiting coordinator covering the scope of the role and compensation. The second with the hiring manager, which lasted more than an hour and was positive. Onsite interviews included several executives across more than one visit. The onsite with the hiring manager was redundant, covering little material outside the scope of the phone conversation. Two other interviews were cut short because interviewers were late, coming from other meetings. The senior hiring official repeatedly broke promises about communication and timelines. Toward the end, it became apparent that they were stringing along rather than making a decision -- that is, they probably had decided the fit was close but not ideal, but didn't want to let go of one candidate until they had a decision from another finalist. A bad hiring practice because being in a late stage makes it difficult for candidates to continue a job search on other fronts in good faith; extending the process for literally months is unfair to the candidate. The executive team was largely a pleasure to talk with. Negative comments from employees on Glassdoor notwithstanding, they seem to have a solid strategy and clarity of mind about what their business is, and what it is not. So, although the hiring process was overall a negative experience characterized by poor communication and broken promises, the team seems sound and the business is interesting.