My experience with the National Research Group's interview process was unfortunately disappointing. It comprised several stages, each leaving me with a distinct impression of the company and its culture. The initial interview with a recruiter was standard, lasting about 30 minutes. The questions were straightforward, focusing on my experience and preferences regarding travel and management responsibilities. However, the subsequent calls didn't fare as well. The conversation with two potential team members felt rigid and scripted with an overwhelming number of questions, leaving me with minimal time to ask my own questions. It lacked the fluidity of real conversation. I felt as if the interviewers were more concerned about getting through the questions than hearing my responses. One concerning revelation was the expectation of long work hours. A team member mentioned working 9-10 hour days as standard and spikes to 12-14 hours a day during busy periods. This raised doubts about the work-life balance offered by the company, especially when mainly working remotely. The assessment task consisted of observing several clips from a focus group session and preparing client findings followed by drafting a discussion guide outline. The final interview with senior leadership mirrored the earlier call in its excessive questioning and lack of conversational flow. The first part of the interview was about the assessment. During these questions, it became evident that the interviewer's expectations did not align with the provided instructions. The instructions mentioned an outline of a discussion guide, but it was clear they wanted a more detailed, complete guide. There was a notable disconnect between the questions asked and the expected depth of responses. Given the structured nature of these questions, I initially responded appropriately. However, when prompted to elaborate, I expanded on my answers, only to feel as though I wasn't being listened to attentively. Throughout the interview, as other reviews mentioned, I was interrupted multiple times during my answers, which gave the impression that the interviewer didn't appreciate my responses. Additionally, hypothetical scenarios were presented without sufficient context making it challenging to provide meaningful answers. The entire interview process spanned an unreasonable 5-6 weeks, during which I began to question the transparency of the company regarding its work environment, workload, and travel requirements. Despite the job posting indicating 10% travel (if I recall correctly), it became apparent that the actual travel expectations were significantly higher, possibly reaching 30-40%. This lack of upfront communication was concerning and felt shady. Furthermore, the delayed communication regarding the hiring decision added to my frustration. Despite being assured that I would receive feedback from the recruiter within the week following the final interview, I found myself having to initiate contact more than three weeks later. While I acknowledge that unforeseen circumstances and personal matters can arise, proactive and transparent communication from the recruiter's end would have alleviated some frustration and fostered a more positive interview experience. In conclusion, although not being offered the position initially seemed disappointing, reflecting on the interview experience, I am now relieved. National Research Group's interview process left much to be desired in terms of transparency, communication, and alignment of expectations.

My first interview was with an HR representative, who asked standard questions. My second interview was with a Director and VP at the company, who asked more technical skills. I was ghosted after this interview.