I recently interviewed for the Associate SEO Manager position. The first two rounds were structured and went smoothly, which created a positive impression of the process.
However, the third round, focused on assignment discussion, felt noticeably different. The panel consisted of the SEO Head and another manager. The discussion began constructively, but as it progressed, I was frequently interrupted and not given adequate time to complete my responses, which made it difficult to fully explain my reasoning and approach.
The assignment itself was limited to a specific section of the website and was given with a two-day timeline. During the discussion, several questions were raised that appeared to require a much deeper audit and significantly more time than the original scope allowed. The conversation gradually shifted toward minute details and off-assignment queries, with limited openness to alternative perspectives.
Overall, the experience felt less like a collaborative discussion and more like a rigid evaluation environment. While rigorous evaluation is understandable, a more balanced and respectful exchange would allow candidates to demonstrate their expertise more effectively. The panel’s long tenure at the organization was evident in their confidence and firmly established viewpoints.
