I spoke with the recruiter, completed a practical assignment, and then met with a few cross-functional partners before meeting with one of the founders. The practical assignment provided common scenarios and asked how I would approach them. The meeting with partners dove into my background. I appreciated the opportunity to share the story of how my career has evolved and how this role would contribute to it. In conclusion, they asked for references from the leaders I had spoken of throughout my interviews.

Most companies with only 60 employees don't have this many Interview Reviews - it's because their interview process is very long and not a great candidate experience.  The company uses the WHO Method, a controversial executive recruiting methodology, to interview candidates no matter the role level. That means you are being interviewed like a CEO for any job at the company!  This approach involves spending an excessive amount of time grilling someone with a series of rapid-fire questions, interrupting the candidate on the smallest detail. It digs deep regardless of how relevant it is to the position or not, also asking the candidate the same question over and over again in hopes of uncovering some fact or admission that is not in their favor - a "gotcha" attempt to see if a candidate would stumble. The WHO Method is also known for increasing the odds of discriminatory hiring. It can also be punitive and specifically can guide interviewers in a biased manner to find a reason to not hire the candidate if they are not trained properly in U.S. hiring and employment laws. Oftentimes, the style of interviewing will cause the interviewer to ask inappropriate questions without even thinking and it is especially unfair toward women and BIPOC candidates. The line of questioning used in the interview process backs candidates into a corner and forces them to share confidential, personal information that is protected by law. For example, in my two-hour interview reviewing my work history session went back more than 15 years and over-indexed on jobs I held in college that had no direct relevance to the position. When asked questions about my reasons for taking another job, it led to a series of questions about why I couldn't hang on and ride out the market, which left me in an awkward position of sharing that my finances and family circumstances couldn't wait for circumstances to change. In the U.S., financial history/motivations as well as questions about your personal life, children, and marriage status are protected under EEOC and interviewers should be careful to not ask questions that put candidates in a position to directly or indirectly disclose this information.  The company seems to be obsessed with finding out your performance review history and manager ratings. They ask in-depth questions about how you were rated, and what feedback you were given in past jobs. They ask the names of your managers, and how long you work with them so that they can build a list of references they want to call - even if it was your first job in high school and that person hasn't worked with you in your current field. They do not let you pick your references - they tell you who they want to speak to and you can only decline to share. The concern with this is that the company could also use the list to backchannel you, which is illegal in several states in the U.S. I can attest that I was backchanneled by the company because the person they called informed me about it and me and the person called both live in a state where backchannels are illegal.  They also ask someone to sit in the work history review session to take notes, which means there's a second person who hears all about your performance review and career history decisions. Rather than using Metaview or some other tool to take notes, they are risking other employees having access to confidential candidate information. In my case, the person selected to take notes was a potential peer, which means the person I'd be working with most closely and reporting to the same direct manager would know about my past performance reviews.  The company does not have a VP HR or VP Talent (they are trying to hire these roles) and the Recruiting/HR team runs very lean. Their HR team is entirely based in Canada and most of the U.S. recruiters are new to the company, which means there are likely not enough guardrails or knowledge of U.S. employment laws built into the hiring process. When you add on using a hiring methodology like the WHO Method, it is very hard to prevent hiring managers and interviewers from going down the path of unintentional discrimination.  I rarely write reviews like these, but I'm extremely concerned about their hiring practices as a professional in the field of hiring and recruiting. They do an excellent job of explaining what the process involves to candidates, but that doesn't mean candidates understand the meaning or implications of the hiring approach. I went into my interviews knowing full well where it could lead and was shocked to see it unfold as I expected. I think they mean well and want to do their best to hire people who embrace their core values, but it does not represent their culture well or leave candidates feeling positive about the company. This will likely be all fixed when they hire their VP HR in the next year, but until then...prepare extensively and explore at your own risk.