Charlie Health Recruiter Interview Questions
& Process

The interview process was definitely rigorous, but it was clear that the team genuinely cares about who they bring on board. Yes, they are hiring a lot of recruiters, but they maintain a really high bar, which is refreshing. Everyone I spoke with was passionate about the company and the role, and it was obvious that they take hiring seriously. This isn’t like some companies where hiring recruiters feels like an afterthought—it’s a priority, and they ensure they’re bringing in the right people. This is a company that values quality over just filling seats.

You start with a screening from a recruiter who seems disengaged and focused solely on KPIs and productivity. They pose a confusing scenario about a pizza shop with slow service, demanding a ranked list of 10 improvements, and are rigid with feedback. Despite promising an update in a week, they contacted me three weeks later. Following this, a cognitive assessment is administered, which is problematic for neurodiverse candidates as results and reasoning aren't shared, making it more suited for analytical roles. After passing, the next step involves unpaid work, where you demonstrate your recruitment techniques on an actual job opening. This practice is questionable in terms of best practices.

The first step was a call with a new employee, which was a general screening and a decent conversation. I had applied for a leadership role but was selected to move forward for a senior recruitment role instead, which I was open to. The second step was the Raven test, a picture-matching task that wasn't difficult but was an unusual part of the process. The third step was an interview with a lead to review my experience again. This is where things went poorly. I was repeatedly asked why I wanted to move into a lower-level position since I'm currently in management. I explained I wasn't initially interested but my experience led me to move forward, with the expectation of advancing later. I was told it would take 8-10 years to move up in management. The interviewer was off-putting, dishonest, and rude. I knew I wouldn't proceed because I wasn't giving them exactly what they wanted. My questions about KPIs, PIPs, and how a lead supports a team member seemed to aggravate the interviewer, which I expected given Glassdoor reviews about retention issues due to KPI expectations and lack of support. I knew I wouldn't get an offer to continue because my 'challenging questions' about the company's potential negatives weren't expected. I was turned off from the start by interviewing with someone less than a month into the company, especially when I applied for a leadership role and was then questioned about wanting to move down. Any company that can't handle challenging questions is a red flag. I personally enjoy interviewing candidates who question the company. Highlighting only positives and not being open about negatives is a red flag. I could have played along, but I refuse to work for a company with a bad culture or bad management, especially after seeing firsthand how it affects teams and performance. I felt compelled to ask these questions due to numerous negative reviews.