Initially, their process is very efficient and probably one of the best I have ever seen. Overall, it took about 1 month. All the interviews were done remotely. I got 4 interviews: 1st → with HR 2nd → with the n+1 and another manager at the same level 3rd → with the n+2 4th → a scientific presentation with the hiring manager, 2 other managers, the n+2 and the n+3. Overall, people were initially quite friendly and the process was okay. But, at the end, I felt quite frustrated for three reasons: 1/The interaction I had with my potential future n+1 was limited to the first interview... That's pretty limited when you're considering stepping into a new role. 2/The n+2 was very into personal development and that kind of managerial bs → red flag. I want actual managers with some real vision not cult leaders. 3/Scientific presentation is a good idea but the process is not honest → they let you pick the topic. They shouldn't do that because it's not fair. They should evaluate everyone on the same basis. Also, they asked questions, most of which were not directly related to the presentation, so what's the point of doing it? I really answered questions wrong, bad luck + it's my fault... however I realized it myself afterward because during the interview they let me think I was right → what's the point of doing that? Is this some sort of way to make fun of people after the fact? It's rude and very disrespectful. I want trustable managers not people who make fun of others to promote themselves. Besides, do they really need to involve so many high-level people in such a process? Don't these people have anything better to do? Obviously I'll let you guess why they didn't hire me in the end. In any case I would have declined in view of what the interviews revealed about the management.

Hirevue interview, with a set of questions to prerecord answers to, such as team work and employment history, it wasn’t the nicest process to go through as there was little feedback or any ability to speak to a real person