The process began with an initial issue: I was ghosted by the recruiter. I joined a scheduled video interview and waited, but he never showed. Later, he explained there had been an emergency involving his children. That’s understandable—I have children as well—so we rescheduled without issue. From that point forward, I was proactive and responsive after every interview, following up promptly and helping move the process along quickly. The hiring manager was personable and clearly motivated to fill the role; it was evident he needed support and was trying to move forward efficiently. Whenever I emailed him—often copying the recruiter—he consistently replied kindly and promptly. Communication from the recruiter, however, was minimal to nonexistent throughout most of the process. Like others have mentioned, the interview sequence included an ADU-style project that required a significant time investment, with little acknowledgment of that effort. This was followed by several additional interviews, including one with the Chief of Staff, who was relatively new to the team at the time. The company culture strongly reflects a hustle mentality. The hiring manager spent an extra 30 minutes with me and used very encouraging language—enough that it felt an offer would have been extended if the decision were solely his. Unfortunately, the conversation with the Chief of Staff is where things shifted. During that interview, I was asked to prioritize five things that mattered most to me in a company. I shared honestly that work–life balance ranked third. I clarified that while I am absolutely capable of working 60-hour weeks when necessary, I am not interested in doing so every week simply for optics. I value efficiency, focus, and delivering strong outcomes. Some weeks require more time; others do not. Sustainable performance matters to me. It was clear after that response that the tone changed and a decision had likely already been made. The organization appears to favor constant overextension and performative hustle over results-driven efficiency. They were close to securing their Series B at the time and he made sure to tell me they didn’t want anyone to get a free ride. I am highly qualified for this role and was intentionally seeking a position where I could perform consistently and at a high level while balancing family responsibilities. Not everyone is trying to climb to the executive tier, and strong organizations benefit from experienced professionals who want to do excellent work without political posturing. Five days after my final follow-up, I received a generic rejection email from the recruiter—despite the many hours invested throughout the process. I believe the people here are likely working hard and well-intentioned. However, in this case, ego and control seemed to override trust in the hiring manager’s judgment. Empowering managers to hire the right people—and valuing results over bravado—would go a long way. I understood the expectations of the role and would have met them without issue. This role may be a good fit for those who thrive in a hierarchy-driven environment, but it may not suit experienced professionals seeking autonomy, efficiency, and sustainability.

Quick response to application. Nice recruiter that didn't know a lot about the role. Recruiter will tell you they want to move you to the next interview and you just need to do a quick exercise first. In reality the next interview depends on the exercise. And the exercise, as other reviews have pointed out, is a little ridiculous. They want you to create a comprehensive guide covering a lot of information about how to get an ADU permitted in San Francisco in 1-3 hours. They will tell you on a Friday that you have 3 days to do it, and it's unpaid. Anyone who works in planning in California knows how complicated and ever changing this has become. San Francisco makes it much worse by requiring a genuinely ridiculous amount of steps and approvals to get an ADU built. If you actually understand this field, you understand how unrealistic this exercise is. This is typical for startups founded by engineers and MBAs who don't actually understand the industry they're trying to disrupt. After spending 3 hours of my weekend on short notice doing this, I was told they weren't moving forward (remember the recruiter made it seem like the next interview was definite) and given no reason why. The majority of this process was unorganized and disrespectful. And the salary range is not adequate for the work. If you work in this field you also know that, as it stands, Permitflow's product is just a bunch of permit expediters inputting things into a slick UI for developers. Their tool isn't innovating anything. Half the company is Permit Operations and that's where most of their new hiring will be. It's just permit expediters with a tech label on it. If they succeed in building AI plan check then it could be legitimate, but this is another long and dance startup.