I recently interviewed for a leadership position at the company after applying through a job posting. Over the course of approximately three months, I participated in five rounds of interviews, including discussions with HR, senior leadership, business and systems stakeholders, and members of the executive team.
The process covered a broad range of topics, including technology strategy, OMS and supply chain domains, leadership, organizational challenges, and long-term business direction. I invested significant time preparing for each stage and accommodated scheduling requests, including late-night interviews due to travel constraints. Throughout the process, I remained highly interested in the role and felt my background aligned well with the company's needs.
While I appreciated the opportunity to meet many members of the organization and found the conversations with the executive leadership particularly valuable, I was disappointed by the lack of communication and closure at the end of the process. After completing all interview rounds, I had to repeatedly follow up with recruiting for updates. The only response I ultimately received was that the company was still evaluating whether to proceed with the role as originally defined or potentially redefine the position.
I fully understand that business priorities change and that companies may decide to pause, modify, or even cancel a hiring process. However, after multiple interview rounds and several months of engagement, candidates deserve clear and timely communication regarding the status of their application. Even if a decision has not been finalized, regular updates and a formal conclusion to the process demonstrate respect for the time and effort invested by candidates.
I continue to have great respect for the brand, the challenges the company is solving, and many of the individuals I met throughout the process. My feedback is simply that candidate experience should not end with the final interview. Communication, transparency, and closure are important parts of the hiring process, especially for senior-level roles where both sides invest considerable time and effort.
Interview questions [1]
Question 1
How would you solve the inventory accuracy issue across B2C and B2B channels?
Email acknowledged application and nothing since. It’s very disappointing when a company solicits applications and don’t take the time to screen and reject. This is all done with AI in the ATS system. No action indicates the recruiters aren’t taking the time to disposition the applications.
This was unfortunately one of the more frustrating interview experiences I have had. The process was extremely lengthy, and I found myself having to follow up multiple times with HR for updates. Communication was often slow, and there were long periods of waiting between interview stages.
Despite the delays, I progressed through several rounds, including interviews with senior stakeholders and the VP, before reaching the final interview with the line manager. Given how far I had advanced in the process, I was hopeful about the outcome and committed a significant amount of time and effort throughout the process.
After a prolonged wait and several follow-ups, I was informed that the company had decided to move forward with another candidate. The feedback provided was that I lacked sufficient work experience. However, I found this difficult to understand, as I have more than seven years of directly relevant professional experience in the field, while the role itself required only three years of experience.
While I fully respect the company’s right to select the candidate they believe is the best fit, the reasoning provided did not seem consistent with my background or the stated requirements of the position. This left me with more questions than answers, especially after successfully progressing through all interview stages up to the final round.
Overall, the combination of a lengthy hiring process, the need for repeated follow-ups, and feedback that appeared misaligned with the role requirements made for a disappointing candidate experience. Greater transparency, timelier communication, and more specific feedback would have helped make the process feel fairer and more respectful of the time invested by candidates.