Communication and guidance from the recruiting/hiring team can be improved. The case study was framed as open-ended but evaluated against a specific strategic direction the panel had in mind. Clearer context on the company goal and whether the exercise is a strategy or design assessment would significantly improve the candidate experience. Candidates invest significant time in case studies and expect the same level of preparation and clarity from the hiring team in return.

I applied for a role through a referral and was contacted by the TA team a week later. After the initial call, I had a series of interviews: first with the hiring manager, followed by another manager, the head of design, and the head of engineering. After 5 interviews over several weeks, I was informed that I lacked a specific skill—which wasn’t even mentioned in the job description. Surprisingly, they suggested my skills matched another role. I agreed to proceed, which led to 2 more rounds: one with another hiring manager and another with the head of engineering. Both rounds went well, with positive feedback. Finally, I was scheduled for an eighth and “final” round with the SVP of Product. Despite 8 interviews, 8 hours of discussions, and consistently great feedback from everyone, I was ultimately rejected after more than 2 months because I lacked skills for this second role as well. My Takeaways: The process was unnecessarily long and could have been streamlined significantly. Key expectations for the roles should be outlined upfront to prevent candidates from investing time in roles they aren’t aligned with. Communication from the TA team required constant follow-ups, which added to the frustration. While I appreciated the opportunity to engage with the team and the interviewers were professional and respectful, the experience felt mismanaged overall. On the bright side, it was great interview practice!