I'm not sure if anyone from Stripe actively reviews or acts on candidate feedback, but I want to highlight something important: a candidate’s performance in interviews is often heavily influenced by how the panelists conduct the session.

In my case, I felt very well-prepared. I had done three mock interviews before Stripe and walked into the process confident in my readiness. However, the actual experience varied drastically depending on the engagement level of the interviewers. During the Execution and Strategy interview, one panelist had their video off the entire time, and the main interviewer never once made eye contact; his camera was angled at his forehead while he typed throughout. He rushed through questions without engaging meaningfully with my answers, and the lack of interaction made it extremely difficult to build any rapport or demonstrate depth.

In contrast, the management round, held 45 minutes later, was far more conversational and created space for a thoughtful exchange. That difference matters.

I did not make it through the process, and while I’m open to having fallen short on some answers, I also believe that interviewers have a responsibility to create an environment where candidates can do their best work. Unfortunately, that wasn’t consistently the case here. It’s disappointing to receive a rejection without any feedback, especially after investing so much time and energy.

Interviews should be designed to bring out the best in candidates. I hope this note is taken seriously and helps improve the process for others.

Tell me about the time...