I went through a long interview process for an Engineering Manager / Product & Platform type role at Enpal.
The process included several stages:
1. Initial hiring manager conversation
2. Additional engineering manager / peer-style conversations
3. Final onsite interview
4. Later re-contact for a different Senior Software Engineer-type role after the original process was closed
The people I spoke with were mostly friendly and professional, and I received several positive signals during the process. The conversations themselves were generally interesting and covered a broad mix of
technical, leadership, product, and culture topics.
The final onsite was quite extensive and included multiple parts:
- live coding
- system design
- product / business discussion
- culture and technical leadership discussion
Example topics/questions included:
- discussing management experience and expectations from a product manager partner
- solving a coding problem around maximizing profit from buy/sell prices, including complexity and API design considerations
- designing a 1:1 live chat system, including real-time delivery, message history, WebSocket/Kafka tradeoffs, and future attachment support
- discussing collaboration between data engineers and data scientists
- talking about metrics, SLI/SLOs, GDPR-aware data architecture, and cross-functional ownership
Overall, the interview content was relevant and reasonably senior. The issue was not the interviewers themselves, but the coordination and internal alignment around the role.
After the final onsite, I had to wait about a week for the final decision. I was then told the company moved forward with another candidate who was a closer fit for that specific role, while also receiving
positive feedback about my technical and personal impression. That part was understandable.
What made the experience frustrating was what happened afterwards. Around three weeks later, Enpal contacted me again themselves about a different role. The message was not just a generic “let’s stay in touch”
conversation. I was told that they would like to make me an offer if I was open to considering an IC role instead of the Engineering Manager role.
I said that an IC role could be suitable for me, depending on scope, level, compensation, and growth path. We then discussed a Senior Software Engineer-type position, compensation expectations, and whether the
role could be adjusted toward a more senior / Staff-level path. This created the clear impression that there was a real alternative opportunity being explored and that an offer was being considered.
After that second conversation, I again had to wait about a week for a final decision. Eventually, the process was closed again after “final internal alignment” with the team.
My main feedback is that Enpal should clarify role scope, level, compensation range, hiring ownership, and internal direction before re-engaging candidates after a closed process, especially when the conversation
is framed around a potential offer. Reopening a process before those points are aligned creates unnecessary uncertainty and takes up significant candidate time and mental energy.
In short:
- Good people interactions
- Interesting and relevant interview topics
- Strong technical and leadership evaluation
- But weak process clarity, inconsistent role alignment, repeated waiting periods after final-stage discussions, and poor coordination after the original process was closed
- Most frustratingly, the process was reopened by Enpal with an offer-oriented conversation, only to be closed again after internal alignment
For senior candidates, especially those already in other active processes, this kind of uncertainty matters. A company should not re-engage a candidate for a new role, especially with offer-oriented language,
unless the role, level, scope, compensation range, and decision process are already internally clear.
