Long, multiple new steps, very fractured and feedback often took 5 or more days. Probably the worst experience I've had. Structure follows the same as most tech companies, screening, hiring manager, role play. However there was another 4-5 steps included over 2 months.

My recent engagement with Braze's application process presented a mixed experience, initiating positively but evolving into a more drawn-out and less communicative final phase. The initial stages were largely efficient. My first call with the recruiter was brief and to the point (15 minutes, camera-off), an expected practice. The subsequent second call with the hiring manager was a definite highlight. We established good rapport, and the conversation was productive. The recruiter's initial feedback following this interaction was also timely and appreciated. The third stage involved a case study presentation with a Braze panel. While initially planned remotely, the option to present in-person at the office was a welcome touch. The reception was cordial, and the one-hour session appropriately focused on role-specific questions, value proposition, and team integration, leveraging the STAR method for assessment. However, my office visit on a Friday revealed a notably quiet environment, suggesting a predominant remote work culture, which impacted the overall office ambiance. Following the case study, the process experienced a noticeable shift in pace and communication. I was advised to expect an update within the second week; however, it required two proactive inquiries on my part to receive a response by the end of that timeframe. This led to an invitation for a 30-minute call with another Senior Manager. This discussion touched upon general success metrics and 90-day role integration strategies, themes that had already been thoroughly explored during the case study. Subsequently, there were extended periods without communication from the recruiter, despite my direct requests for an anticipated feedback timeline. This lack of proactive updates became a significant point of friction. A notable instance of this communication challenge occurred when I was asked on a Monday for my availability for an update call. I promptly provided Tuesday options, aligning with the recruiter's inquiry about Tuesday or Wednesday. Despite this, I received no immediate confirmation. Only on Tuesday did the recruiter independently propose Wednesday, which felt like an unnecessary delay in scheduling. Our scheduled Wednesday call then experienced a last-minute cancellation and a request for a three-hour postponement just prior to the meeting. When the call eventually took place, I joined with my camera on, only to be promptly instructed to turn it off by the recruiter, who emphasized adhering to "procedure." While I complied, this direct approach felt less personalized. The call itself was brief, lasting approximately five minutes, and the feedback provided was difficult to comprehend due to significant audio quality issues. This final interaction, after a two-month application process, felt less constructive than anticipated, especially as a simple email could have conveyed the outcome. When asked if I'd like feedback from the hiring manager, I readily agreed, anticipating a more insightful perspective. However, I have yet to receive this follow-up. The overall communication cadence, particularly in the latter stages of the process, created a less than ideal candidate experience. While the initial interactions were positive, the subsequent delays and lack of consistent updates proved challenging.