Several steps, first there’s a initial interview where they explain the whole process, second they ask you to send them a document explaining a project where you are specially proud, with pros, cons, difficulties, etc.., Third there’s a meeting with the future team, fourth a small project that your team will evaluate, and at the end there’s an interview with the ceo. Everything seemed very well planned and very transparent. Both the documenting a project and the team task was paid, so great experience to do the interview process.

A great idea to give a small payment for the submissions as part of the recruitment process. The idea here is to make it as realistic and as close to real world work as possible (not like getting candidates to solve 5 algorithm puzzles in as quickest time possible). This is a great idea, they are obviously an open minded and sensible company. Sadly though, this aim to create a realistic environment is immediately lost. The first requested submission is to write a small report on one of your career experiences (you know like those reports you write everyday). And to add to the bizarre expectation, no indication is given as to what exactly it is they’re looking for (you know like those reports you’re asked to write where no clue is given for the purpose of it?). Then in a further twist, the reader/reviewer is given absolutely no context of the report. You are instructed to NOT write your name or anything on the report that could be used to associate it with you. This is with an aim to give the reader “no bias”, but all it does is remove all context of the report i.e. the career experience is presented without the fully available and comprehensive context of the career it took place within. A classic case of one step forward, two steps back. And for the final bit of unprofessionalism, literally no feedback is given. This is quite common now for companies that want to feel important- but all it left me wondering was if anyone had actually read the report at all?! Maybe I was victim to a simple administrative error.