I went through multiple rounds with this company, including several online interviews and a final on-site stage. For the final interview, I was asked to prepare and present a full solution to their People Operations and payroll challenges based on real issues they are currently facing.
I spent a considerable amount of time putting together a practical and structured solution that directly addressed their problem statement, focusing on improving accuracy, reducing risk, and adding simple control checkpoints rather than introducing heavy processes or new systems.
The process itself included different stages, including their “Swigfactor” behavioural interview with multiple team members, which felt more like a cultural fit assessment than a role-based evaluation.
What didn’t make sense was the outcome.
After being taken through all these stages and delivering a solution aligned to what they had asked for, the feedback was vague and centred around “alignment”, “communication style”, and being more “lightweight”. This felt contradictory, given the level of depth and structure they expected in the task itself.
If the expectation was to provide solutions with minimal process or a more informal approach, that should have been made clear much earlier. Instead, the process felt misaligned, where candidates are asked to solve real business problems, but then assessed on unclear and subjective criteria.
Overall, it felt like a significant investment of time and effort without clear direction on what success actually looked like.
Candidates should be aware of the level of preparation required at final stage, particularly when asked to present solutions to real internal challenges, as expectations may not be clearly defined.
