I was referred by an employee. I received a call a day later for a phone interview. That went well and I was asked to come to the headquarters for an in person interview with a gentleman and another Client Director. That interview also went well and I was asked to come back again for another onsite interview for approximately 5 hours. I came in and there were 2 other candidates in the room where the company provided lunch for us and an opportunity to meet the regional managers as well as other Client Directors. It was pleasant and the office was very impressive at first glance. I was given a tour and shown all the amazing things about the company which they aren't shy telling you about. After an hour with 3 client directors I was given a more extensive tour and all the perks were explained to me in detail (there are a lot). And then we got to the CEO's office. He was not there at the time but the scooter he rides on IN THE OFFICE was there. They were very proud of this and gave me a tour inside his office as his door is "always open". Then we moved onto the "case study/exercise" which entailed placing me in a room alone with a desktop computer and a case to work. I was to put together a growth strategy for a fictional shoe company here in Austin that was losing market share. They gave me 30 minutes. I could ask some questions which was helpful. My work was to be presented to the regional managers who acted like "investors" and then picked apart the proposal. Honestly, it felt like they just wanted to sucker punch you in every which way to see how you reacted. In hindsight, the guy in flip flops rolling his eyes at me while I presented didn't make me feel like this place was where I wanted to be. Regardless I did my best. In the end, they didn't like how I reacted to their feedback and I didn't get the job. The most interesting part was that an acquaintance was interviewing with them for the same job a month later. When I learned of this, I told the candidate that I'd coach her on what to expect. This person had tons of banking and sales experience and we chatted for an hour about this interview and what to expect. I told the candidate everything I could remember about the interview. This person was so appreciative and thought she nailed it. Turns out she didn't get the job either. So in a nutshell, I think Kasasa's process for recruiting candidates to this role is severely flawed. I'm not sure what they are looking for but no one will shine in their case study approach - find another way,. I think they definitely need to fine tune their process and stop trying to be so quirky and cool. Show some professionalism. I get that this is a tech company and it's relatively small but come on. If it's taking the company months to find a fit perhaps they are looking for some sort of unicorn and missing the folks that can really help them succeed in this role. They also ask you to take a wonderlic test.

The bulk of the 5+ hour interview process was actually very good, but this portion alone just left an overall bad taste: As other candidates for this role have indicated, the case study and presentation portion of their interview process is flawed. Then again, who knows what they're ultimately trying to accomplish with it. I actually thought I had them figured out, in terms of believing I didn't fall for what seemed like a trick test. You talk to someone acting as a Business Owner, who doesn't have answers to several of the (in some cases, very basic) questions most real business owners would have, you're then given 30 minutes to create an end all be all solution based on the information, and then present on that solution to a group acting as investors. At a high level, the solutions to this case study were very obvious. However, the missing information from the business owner was critical to an actual end all be all solution, which was the expectation laid out. This is where I thought I had them figured out: Part of this is working around traps that are set to identify someone with a lack of integrity. Surely the guy behind the smarmy investor character isn't really expecting me to make up the numbers that were unknown to the business owner, or get me to commit to one proposed approach vs another without being allowed additional time to dig into some of that basic data. If this is intended to be the real life scenario described, with real money at stake, then real integrity is critical. Surely it was all a trick, like the pretend investor coming in halfway through the presentation, or the one distracted by their laptop asking you to repeat what they missed. No problem. You work through and around those things, even when you have 30 minutes to prepare and 10 minutes to present. What was concerning is, when it was all said and done, and they come out of that investor role, there really seemed to have been an expectation for you to invent the numbers that the business owner didn't have. Assuming this perception is accurate, no thank you. In the real world, I'm confident they would not expect or allow their employees to do this. All in all I felt like some members of the group participating in this piece were likely young and inexperienced, or perhaps a different expectation could be set around what the point of this exercise really is. Again, the rest of the 5+ hour interview process was just fine. They seem to put a lot of stock in this portion though and, as much as both the company and candidates invest in this process, hopefully they'll come around to tweaking it. I do think they're likely losing out on some great people because of it.