I didn't apply, I was contacted via LinkedIn and asked if I was interested in 'tech lead'. I am an engineering executive so 'tech lead' means exec committees, vision, coaching leadership, etc.. I didn't know what level they sought. I agreed and spoke with a recruiter. It went well and I was given a timed online exam. Next was a phone interview about my experience. It went well and they asked me to come on-site. I still didn't know leadership level. I asked questions about potential positions, level, department and was given generic duties of a Sr. SDM. I was told about 'title deflation' and given prep material for an SDM. Duties of Directors better align with my experience and career stage, however. My questions weren't adequately addressed. I was given a writing assignment and scheduled for an on-site loop. They covered travel and expenses. The hotel was ok and a 20 minute walk from the interview location. 4 interviews were scheduled but became 5 when onsite. Some had flights scheduled and needed to scramble. We were brought to individual rooms and interviewers came to us. I'd prepared for an SDI as one interview, but half way through the first we started an SDI question. I was flustered as only 25 minutes remained. ** Issue: I am analytical, design systems thoughtfully, but I process 'inside'. I don't do my best work off the cuff at a whiteboard. I asked questions and tried, but likely didn't do well. This doesn't reflect my design abilities, however. It assesses processing 'outloud'. Having hired many people, I don't believe this assesses design abilities, but a single way of verbal problem solving. I prepared more than I have for other interviews, but not enough of this means of communication. I process 'inside' yet was graded against another style. As if there is only one way. The interviews improved, I believe. I connected when I was able, but they were regimented. **Issue: The regimented, time constrained interviews meant that I had little chance to present what makes me unique, my passions regarding leadership and tech. I didn't have the opportunity to present the examples I'd prepared of all the leadership traits and specifically the ones I was coached to highlight. Questions were focused on negative situations, which I understand, but little time on positives and wins. I prepared to talk about failures, rebounds and growth, but couldn't. Questions were so specific that my examples didn't fit. They kept driving technical problem for crazy scale. I received positive feedback during some of these but don't know for sure. Lunch was brought to my room and I ate alone. This isn't a sour grapes "I didn't get the job and it's all their fault" post. I just didn't hit the rubric. My SDI was spotty. My on-the-fly process-out-loud responses were not as good as they could be. My answers weren't solid STAR format either! I own it. The reality is that the average tenure for new hires is 18 months, as I understand it. That it's not for everyone. I wonder if this process for leadership selection is missing a human element of growing and nurturing employees? It finds technical talent with good white boarding skills and people better than me at staffing metrics. Does it find LEADERS, though? What of the leadership culture if the focus is on technology, metrics and hitting a well known interview rubric? "Will you admire this person?" as asked by Bezos. I don't feel I could demonstrate who I was, so why would my interviewers answer that positively? I know that I can help Amazon and also know that I am NOT cutout for this interview process. This seems to favor those that study to the test, hit the rubric, think and process in their way (or are better at faking it). There are books and videos and services available to ace this interview. But why? I believe Amazon recognizes and hires people who conform for those 5 hours. Not for who they are, but for how they conform. As a leader of leaders, I felt I was interviewing for an entry level, first manager job. This was confirmed during one of the interviews, even. Managing a single team or perhaps two. I had just re-org'ed 5 departments, developed new programs and managed outside relationships. 15 years ago, I was recruited to revamp multiple engineering teams. Perhaps I was talking with the wrong people? Interviewing for the wrong role? So, I give it a thumbs down. I completely own that I didn't hit the interview. No doubt. I'm disappointed in the narrow definition of leader and how they should think and communicate. Perhaps the short tenure of new employees coupled with this interview methodology are related...