The interview process consists of the following rounds -
1. Recruiter screen - Basic questions on profile , my recruiter was in a rush and didnt talk much about the team as well, mostly if the tech stack matched
2. Senior manager/Director screen - This was supposed to be 1hr long but instead was 30mins as told to me by the senior manager. Questions were majorly around my experience , conflict management, etc. By the end , she asked me if I always work with architects and told that at Loblaws we only work with architects when its something critical/complicated enough. The expectation from the managers is to provide technical guidance to the team, which is essentially a "glorified lead" trap
3. System design round - I was then moved to a system design round with an architect who was very knowledgeable and this was the most meaningful conversation I had in the entire process with the company.
4. Hiring manager round - I had this round with the skip level manager, Senior Director in this case who basically asked me behavioral and people management questions. In one part of the conversation it came up that I have worked with QA teams as a separate vertical and at Loblaws DEVs work in the QA capacity as well, but otherwise the conversation went really well and smooth.
My process ended in 2 weeks and by the end, the feedback I received for rejecting me was that I had not worked with organizations/teams wherein DEVs worked in QA capacity as well. This was never brought up as an absolute requirement for the role and it was merely circumstantial that I had worked with companies where QA verticals are separate. But this was held against me despite my qualifications and performance in the interviews. Extremely disappointed with such people who are so senior in the management ladder but really are missing true leadership experience