Recruiter reached out through LinkedIn. Had a first level interaction with directly the decision maker in the name of 45 minutes interview that lasted precisely 110 minutes. The senior manager showed keen interest. Was soon followed into full loop with 4 interviews back to back 30 minutes each through a video conference, which was then to be followed up with another in person interview with the same senior manager who I talked to earlier. Video Conference interviews were pretty funny: Interviewer 1: "I am not sure why would you like to join this team. Of the 12-13 people on the team, I am the only one with marginal success and others are trying to still find their grounds". Anyways, the discussion was matured two mid management people level discussion. The other three interviewers, each were of lesser experience than myself, none finished an year on the team. The discussions had a positive side of good selling (only in certain pockets) but largely lacked a structure in the interview planning. If I was to give a feedback to Indeed, the first and foremost feedback would be to have more transparency in their interviews. The recruiters need to know what signals are they looking for (my recruiter, despite trying to be his most helpful, had no idea and would always say, look into your CV). If there is a screening and full loop, it is researched and advised to keep focus areas and allow the candidate to be AWARE of what is being tested. Not only I was clueless, the four rounds were a clear repetition with the exact same questions being asked. I then met the senior manager on site. After an hour of discussion with him, while leaving the room, my thoughts were literally shifted from, "Its time to make a move from my current company to probably this new adventure" to "Do I really want to work here if I even get a chance". There were reasons for it. I asked what is the role of the team in certain decision making, to which I got the answer "I decide and they do." On countering, the follow up answer was, "I know it. Why waste time in over consultation". This did not give the best impression of the company or the team to me. What, however, fixed the final nail was the feedback. Again, the recruiter being kind enough gave me a generic review on the phone, which was however poles apart from the feedback and discussions I had and the real time feedback I gathered. It is ok to give candidate good experience, it is not ok to give candidate a delusional experience. I clearly recall almost everyone stating in the interviews they see a great match in what I do and what they are looking for multiple times. The feedback on the other hand was, "We are looking for someone with more established experience in one particular field that you don't have experience in." This was discussed at length in my screening and if this was the reason, one could have saved time of both the parties on a non trivial selection criteria. The introduction and research about Indeed did open a lot of facts about the company, mostly on the positive side. The company is pacing well, and clearly aggressive both in hiring and growth which is clear, but if there is something that can be improved keeping longevity and reputation over aggression, here's a bit of feedback! Thanks.

Smooth and transparent interview process, clear expectations set throughout. The HR was extremely helpful - one of the best experience of my whole career. Moreover, all the interviewers I had the chance to speak to were open and honest, which I really appreciated.