O processo de entrevista por parte do RH foi bacana, mas depois do gerente e com o time técnico foi meio estranho. Uma coisa havia em comum: em todas as entrevistas o clima era meio desagradável, com as pessoas muito sérias ou como se não quisessem estar ali. Na "entrevista com o time", que me disseram que seria uma conversa com o time, na verdade fui sabatinado no estilo prova oral da faculdade, com perguntas 100% técnicas, e na verdade não uma conversa. Além disso, fui perguntado coisas que em nenhum momento estavam descritas na descrição da vaga, Pareceu que o time jogou no ChatGPT para fazer 5 perguntas e foi o usaram... Depois disso, eles não deram feedback algum, e quando perguntei sobre a vaga, responderam com uma resposta meio que automática dizendo que eu poderia sempre "ficar de olho" em novas vagas. Com isso foi que presumi que tinha sido reprovado.

The onsite interview was structured and the technical discussions were engaging. I met with several members of the hiring team who seemed like people I would genuinely enjoy working with. We discussed our backgrounds, experience, and various opportunities at the team and company levels that were quite exciting. The majority of the time was spent on me answering technical and non-technical questions. Unfortunately, the momentum died immediately after the onsite interview. Following the onsite interview, I experienced four business weeks of total silence. During this month of "radio silence," I received and finalized two other offers (offering better compensation and benefits) from a direct competitor and a major tech firm nearby. Ironically, Motorola Solutions reached out with an offer exactly one month later, but by then, the "appetite" for the role had vanished. A month of silence for a competitive AI/ML and distributed systems role seems excessive and makes the candidate feel like an afterthought. The slow decision-making process suggested a hesitant, paralyzed, and bureaucratic internal culture. The "war for talent" in AI/ML is won through speed and transparency. Even if internal approvals are slow, keeping a candidate "warm" with weekly updates is essential. Despite the relatively lower total compensation, I would have taken this offer if the process had been faster and I had been kept updated. By the time you moved to an offer, you had already lost out to more agile competitors who proactively stayed connected and offered better compensation, along with more respect for the candidate's time. I strongly suggest reviewing your compensation benchmarks (especially for AI/ML and distributed systems roles) and hiring velocity to remain competitive.

Applied, a recruiter reached out asking me to do an assessment before the customary intro call to establish mutual interest. The email was pretty tone-deaf; bragging about how many applicants they have and complaining about people cheating with AI and fabricating experience. This process gave the impression that they don't respect candidates time but I went ahead and did the assessment since I could use the practice. It was quite easy, not something that would filter out anyone who can code unless they were having a bad day. Some time later, I got a generic workday rejection. Not a surprise but a simple "thanks but we went with someone else" should be the bare minimum when you ask someone to spend 30-45 minutes on a one-sided interview. But apparently that is too much for this company/recruiter. I did see reports online they had a round of SWE layoffs on the same week. Their confidently incorrect understanding of how AI works was pretty comical and almost worth the price of entry.