I had three difficult and insightful technical interviews, followed by a team fit round with a manager and two team members.

The technical interviews were strong, and I felt I performed well until the team fit round.

The interviews were as follows:

1. Technical (Coding): General technical questions followed by a LeetCode Medium problem.

2. Technical (Code Review): A valuable interview where I was given a piece of backend code and asked to discuss refactoring approaches and identify potential issues.

3. Technical (System Design): A standard system design interview focused on designing a scalable on-disk database.

4. Team Fit Interview: A discussion with the hiring manager and two potential future colleagues. I did not enjoy this interview. The manager's demeanor seemed overly casual, and based on my initial impression, he appeared to be more of a people manager focused on operational flow rather than a deeply knowledgeable backend engineer. It felt as though he had already identified his preferred candidate. The subsequent team discussion was awkward; the team members were disengaged, and I found myself initiating all questions and receiving passive, uninterested responses.

Verdict: I was rejected after the team interview. The feedback provided was surprisingly random, suggesting they sought a Software Engineer who also possessed Product Management skills. In hindsight, given the passive team and the manager's approach, I might have declined an offer myself.

Overall, I had engaging technical conversations during the three technical interviews, but the manager and team interview was a negative experience (likely for everyone involved). A significant drawback is the apparent disregard for performance in the technical interviews, with the manager's preferences ultimately dictating the outcome, allowing for rejection on any grounds. I question whether it would be more efficient to conduct the manager interview before investing considerable time in technical assessments.