It's a very well defined process with several steps. There is a web page showing the status of your application. The process begins by introducing your personal data, then to a screening exam (test), then a written exam. You also need to record yourself speaking in English. At the end, you'll have a interview with the Hiring Advocate and then to the hiring manager. Once you passes all the tests, you get into a "MarketPlace pipeline", where you can get hired by a manager.

The interview medium selected by Crossover was an online conference/presentation tool (Zoom, in detail) that was hosted initially by allegedly an employee from Crossover. A simple Google search revealed that the hostess was someone that possess a profile as an actress in London (First warning sign here). An explanation from someone supposedly holding a similar position is given and a Q&A session is hold. Not many questions or answer about job conditions, benefits, entitled holidays, etc. Some questions about working dynamics, team management, customer facing duties, etc. are usually replied with "depending on the project you work with). Once reaching the online testing phase, which they report to take 2~3 hours, you realise a few things: - It is here that you have to choose the role you are applying for. Yes, you will be appliying for a Software Engineering Manager position, but it is only at this point that you have to choose for the category, in terms of C# (.NET) or SaaS, among others. The category list doesn't make full sense and you have to make the choice without a detailed job spec whatsoever (Second warning sign here). - There are at least two different online test services involved, with a not very intuitive or self-explanatory process. There is an apparent dependency between the testing services that might potentially result in faulty completion of the whole process. Little to null tech support is provided and you can expect the reply to come after the supposedly deadline for completion of tests. - The online tests take way much longer than reported by then, easily extending to 8~10 hours. Expecting a single person to perform a detailed code review of a whole solution consisting of multiple projects, weighting around 1/4th of the whole tech tests within the 2~3hours frame is simply unrealistic. No previous warning about the need of code developing tools is provided. Communication after the online tests is misleading and quite probably simply automated. You may as well get an email stating your pre-selection for an advocate interview and the next one (days later) saying you didn't make the cut at the test. No feedback on the test is provided. Considering most of the questions in the test are multiple choice, certainly some results can be shared. Also, given the time invested in the test, the least you may expect is feedback with some level of detail. I don't recommend investing a whole day of your life in this when it's clear that the company doesn't even bother to put a sensible automatic system in place.