Recruiter contact, then recruiter screening, then phone interview with hiring manager, then with at least one potential peer who reports to the hiring manager, then with someone the hiring manager reports to. Afterwards, a visit to an office for an in-person, in-depth evaluation as though you're in the role and given access to tools and techniques. (This, in professional HR lingo is a "behavioral interview".) If that goes well you then speak with the Partner in whose business this role operates. (After all, it's *their* money that becomes your salary.) If you pass the Partner's "smell test" then an offer is made.
However, at one point in the interview workflow something very unprofessional happened that really made me question just how competent a company they were. A long track-record of profit, success, and stock growth is nothing to sneeze at. I also know several people who work for the company and are very happy with their careers. Nonetheless, I was strongly turned off by a clear break-down in their processes that I feel lucky that it happened and was not moved forward. It made me think they are not as transparent internally and not as forthcoming in their recruiting as they want people to believe they are. There was something extremely fishy about how things played out. The timing, the wording, the complete contradictory nature of it made no sense at all. I feel I dodged a bullet. I wish I could lay out exactly what happened but that would risk losing the anonymity of the review.
