They seemed like standard questions, checking for knowledge and behaviour. It seems like it was used for more of a benchmarking purposes than anything else. Very bureaucratic process, with efficient time monitoring, little room for creativity.

The process began with an HR screening interview via phone. This took about 30 minutes and the HR rep asked good questions, showing they had knowledge of the role and skills required. The next step was to meet with the hiring manager. This was another 30-minute discussion and was informal, but with good questions. Next, I had to complete an assignment, which took about 1.5 hours, but was a good way to show off my skills and gave me a good sense of the type of work required in the role. The final step was a panel interview with three people. This was much more formal and lasted just over an hour.

The interview process was broken into: Conversations with the decision-makers and HR due diligence. I would describe the overall process as disconnected. ie. A disconnect between HR processes and the business was apparent. Specifically... the questions from the business covered my background, experience, work-style, temperament and approach to working with others. Very professional. The questions from HR seemed to be scattered leading to delays and repetition which added significant time to the oeverall process. Throughout the process it became evident that the misalignment was a sympton of larger organizational issues around effecient decision-making and strategic direction.