I had a phone screening with HIT's HR person, then did a written assessment, and then a video panel interview (with 3 other people). I will note that I did not apply through the pipeline, but through networking, where multiple HIT people had indicated there was an unlisted job opening, and they encouraged me to send my resume along. I am incredibly disappointed in the lack of transparency around the hiring process, as well as inefficiency, given this is a progressive organization run by young people who advertise themselves as different from others in this space.
In the first phone screening, I was explicitly told which team/issue area this role was focused on. This felt like a fairly standard first interview.
I then did the assessment, which was unpaid. It took me around 6 hours to complete (they gave me a few days to finish it). It was relatively straightforward -- explain the differences between qual and quant research, come up with a fake research proposal for a given scenario, write a memo based on some toplines, etc.
The panel interview that followed was supposed to discuss how I did in this assessment, but they did not bring this up. This interview was particularly strange because they also admitted they were Googling me to figure out how they knew me, which implies they did not look at my resume and may not have even received it at all from the HR person who first interviewed me. I asked about team dynamics and they said it depends which team I'm on, which was surprising given I was told a specific team in the first interview. This entire interview felt vague, impersonal, and repetitive of the initial interview I did.
After going through these three rounds, HIT ghosted me. When I followed up, they eventually said that they hired someone internally. They also said they were unable to give any feedback on my assessment, which makes me think no one ever looked at it, since it didn't come up in the panel interview either. It's disappointing they couldn't pass along any feedback at any time.
Two of my other colleagues went through this exact hiring process. One of them was told from the start that there was never a role open and we were being vetted for future openings -- much different from what I was told. However, HIT also posted on LinkedIn that they did hire someone externally, so we were all told different stories about who they were hiring, if anyone. Regardless, I don't know why they were vetting at least three people through a time-consuming, uncompensated assessment as well as interviews with 4+ HIT employees when they clearly knew they were not hiring any of us.