There has to be a governing body that oversees contemporary hiring practices, ensuring ethical practices and transparency. Here is my experience that mirrors similar experiences I've had and read from others:
The first interview was an alignment interview in which I met with a recruiter who asked a few questions and responded to my questions.
I went on to the second round which included both an assessment and skills interview unfortunately. It's unfortunate, especially for candidates, that the assessment was about strategic insights and it was really close to the initial/alignment round. (I now wish I had read a previous Glassdoor interview review with a similar complaint about investing unpaid labor into the process.)
Why? Again: It's time-consuming, unpaid and candidates aren't protected from shared intellectual property.
Why did I spend so much time and effort with the assessment that was also celebrated by the interviewers during the second/skills interview round? I had been told during the initial (alignment) round that there were only 8 candidates moving forward. And for me, hearing that single digit amount of candidates so early in the process was both motivating and reasonable (If there were more candidates or they were still accepting applications, I would have been more skeptical and perhaps not completed the assessment altogether.)
It's really unfortunate for candidates who are in a race towards an offer -- devoting time, competing for a position where they are ultimately seen as disposable sent generic messages that they will not move forward along in the process.
I was significantly disappointment in the outcome following the conclusion of the interview process.
Ultimately, it would have felt honorable and ethical to have received a detailed explanation after devoting so much time in the process. That's the very least these self-proclaimed progressive organizations and "mission driven" companies can do. Candidates deserve that more than the generic message I received, especially after such positive feedback during my interview.
During my second interview I was confident that I would at least make it to the next round. I was repeatedly celebrated for my wealth of experience and received positive responses related to my grassroots background and again, celebrated for the detailed assessment I submitted.
Again, the assessment felt like an extensive request for strategic insights without compensation. I recently was compensated for an interview alone. That confirmed that the organization understood my time was as valuable as their time, and reflected that organization's integrity.
However this experience really raised a red flag for me. I was left questioning the value and respect afforded to me and other candidates.
I have since requested information concerning how my potential contributions were evaluated and the rationale behind the outcome.
In the meantime, I question "mission-driven" companies and so-called progressive organizations, like Exygy, with these drawn out hiring processes, questionable practices and requests to produce unpaid labor while happily disposing valuable and viable candidates.
