Three-stage interview process. The first stage is a hackerrank coding test, the second stage is an initial interview with the hiring manager with some behavioural questions, final stage was several tests.
The first two stages were normal, would have been nice to know more about the company and what it's like to work there. The final stage was where certain red flags started to appear. It seemed very disorganised, and the interviewers did not seem to have much experience interviewing. This part was going back on the initial hackerrank test to make improvements, however, there were technical issues on the hackerrank side so the application was not working as it should, it was not until I insisted I shared my screen that I was told there was a problem. Because of these issues, we ran out of time and this had a knock-on effect for the second part which was a whiteboarding exercise. I only had 10 minutes for this.
The next part was speaking with the head of department which was extremely positive. I was able to get all the questions I wanted to know about the company at this time and had a very nice conversation.
The final interview was more behavioural questions with the hiring manager. Again this was a very pleasant part of the process and felt comfortable with the questions asked.
I received feedback from the recruiter a few days later that because of the first part of the interview, they wanted to offer me a role at an intermediate level. When I asked for further feedback, I was told it was because of the performance in the first part of the final stage interview. There were examples mentioned in the feedback that simply did not happen which left me discombobulated. The feedback was also very hard to understand due to the number of grammatical errors on it. Because of the experience as a whole, I told the recruiter I did not want to be considered anymore which is a shame as there seemed to be exciting projects to work on.
