Pros:
The initial interview stages were positive. The early-round interviewers were professional, courteous, and respectful of the scheduled timelines.
Cons:
The entire experience became incredibly unprofessional once the process advanced to the senior leadership level. Having known this company for a long time through current employees and former colleagues, the decline in standards is obvious.
Communication and organization deteriorated completely in the later rounds. Schedules were constantly shifted, follow-ups were non-existent, and the requirements kept changing. Twice, I was informed I was attending a final round, only to be told later that an extra two rounds were being added. The explanation given was that they needed to loop in other executives but couldn't coordinate everyone's calendars. The hiring manager delivered this news both times, which raises questions about who is actually making the hiring decisions if they cannot finalize a choice after multiple conversations.
Furthermore, the compensation offered is well below the market average. The interview structure matched what you would expect for a VP or GM role, but the proposed salary was closer to a district manager level.
Role 1: Went through four interviews over a four-month span, only to be ghosted by a VP with no rejection email or closure.
Role 2: Completed three interviews over five months. The candidate portal still shows a pending interview setup, but a VP has completely ignored all correspondence.
*I know this isn’t unique to me, I’ve heard the same feedback from multiple people within the industry.
Advice to Management:
Ignoring candidate emails is unacceptable for leadership. This company used to maintain high cultural benchmarks. The core value of "zero excuses, 100% accountability" seems to have been abandoned by the current executive team, particularly within the newer divisions.