The process unfolded as follows: 1) HR Intro/Pulse screen. Basic review of the role to determine high level fit/interest to move forward. 2) Hiring Manager Interview. Casual and conversational with a focus around your resume and accomplishments. More or less do you vibe with the hiring manager. 3) Take home assignment to be completed within a provided databricks environment. Three tracks to chose from; Machine Learning (build a simple model and explain how it works with provided data). SQL (write basic queries, tuning questions, etc.) or Data Engineering. 4) Technical Screen (big data engineering focus) 5) Panel Interview. Case driven with the interviewee playing the role of a Databricks SA by preparing a demonstration & ppt to facilitate the conversation. Based up on the above framework my experience: 1) HR Screen. Very basic and uneventful. 2) Hiring Manager Interview. Around an hour in length with the conversation geared around experience, background and work style. This was a decent conversation and again was fairly uneventful. 3) Take home assignment. This was a fairly technical exercise and took around a half day to complete. Depending on your background this could vary but was very similar to what you'd experience in a 101 course. 4) Tech screen. This is where the red flags started to arise. The screen was conducted by a junior employee who literally read off of a script. The focus was solely around designing big data architectures and experience in data engineering. Completely fair for the role but not areas I was experienced in. I made this unequivocally clear in the preceding HR and Hiring Manager interviews. This went poorly as one could imagine. At the end of the interview I even broke character and brought up once again this was not my background. I was met with "that's ok no one comes in knowing everting, we can teach you". I left the interview skeptical with a minimal expectation of moving forward. I received an overly positive email from the recruiter a few days later inviting me to the next interview stage. I was puzzled yet for a variety of personal reasons compelled to continue. 5) Panel/Case Interview. Several representatives from SA management and Sales. The attendees felt fairly unenthusiastic and unprepared off the bat. I doubt any had actually glanced at my resume. The case was extremely high level and ambiguous (by design). I genuinely agree with the case design as ambiguity is a known entity in exploratory sales conversations. The problem I had was being specifically driven to discuss areas within the databricks platform that I had communicated (3 times now) were not my background. This effectively turned into a pack of wolves berating me for 30 minutes. Never in my career have I been in such an ugly client facing meeting, let alone a simulated one. The outcome of the meeting felt completely premeditated with there being a "lets break this guy" scenario. My suspicion is that I was moved forward as a check box for X candidates to clear the final round in order to make a decision. If that was not the case this was a impressive waste of time by all parties involved. In summary if you decide to interview with this company qualify the opportunity as much as possible. It something seems weird, it probably is. This was by and large the longest and most time consuming interview process I have ever been a part of. The process dragged out for 2 months with most of it being completely avoidable. There definitely are some areas of the hiring process that are broken. Whether it be incompetence or some other self serving intention these guys will waste your time without hesitation. Definitely, a sense of arrogance and entitlement.