Doctoralia Interview Questions
& Process

The selection process at Doctoralia was very professional and enriching, developed in three stages: the first with HR, focused on getting to know my experience and background; the second with HR and the Team Leader, where I did a role play and they offered me the chance to repeat it to show my best version; and the third with three team managers, focused on delving into competencies, motivation, and cultural fit. In all stages, I perceived a close and professional atmosphere, focused solely on my profile and skills, without personal questions, which allowed me to fully demonstrate my abilities and left me with an excellent impression of the organization.

The interview was pretty long and involved a lot of interviews and prep. It started with a TA screening call, where we continued talking on LinkedIn, which I found a bit odd. Then I spoke with the VP of RevOps, who oversees global process standardization across offices that have been operating independently with their own systems and stacks. Next was an interview with the Country Manager, who seemed to have a finance/consulting background. After that, I had a call with someone who appeared very junior and lost, but was the interim team leader for the would-be RevOps org. Then I visited their offices for an onsite meeting with the Country Manager again, the new Head of Sales (who I thought was great), and the new Head of Marketing (who I met online as she hadn't moved yet, but she also had good questions). The process culminated in a Case Study/Panel discussion. I was given raw data with minimal context to analyze. This is when I realized the role was less systems-heavy as initially described and more focused on analyzing rep win-rates and advising on performance management. The case study was tough, presenting the data was hard because it was awkward and difficult to defend, forcing me to make many assumptions. The questions during the case study panel, which included the VP of RevOps, Country Manager, and COO, were also strange, especially given the data's ambiguity. The VP of RevOps asked no questions. The Country Manager and COO asked most of them. Despite the challenges, I passed, even though I told them I didn't think I was what they were looking for, which surprised them. After that, the COO called me 1-on-1 and expressed enthusiasm about convincing me to join. I eventually received an offer. During the waiting period, I researched extensively. It seemed they needed an 'octopus' to handle RevOps, MarketingOps, SQL in Looker/Tableau, deep data analysis, tech stack revamping, and enablement, rather than a traditional RevOps leader. I felt the role would be overwhelming with no clear boundaries, leading to unhappiness. I declined their offer for a role I'm currently enjoying.

The interview process kicked off with an HR interview that lasted about 30 minutes, focusing on fit, skills, and the job requirements. This was followed by an interview with the CEO, which was an hour long. During this meeting, they discussed the necessity of the position and elaborated on the challenges. The CEO also presented a business case. The final stage was an interview with the CRO, also an hour long, which involved a business case.

The process was okay overall, though unnecessarily long. They put you in a meeting with over 10 people just to chat for an hour. The practical test initially seemed straightforward, suggesting an interesting process, but then came the surprise: if you don't do it exactly as the interviewers would, you're deemed unsuitable. Even optional activities, if chosen, become subjects of endless questioning. They leave the tools for the test open but then question why you used them, implying you shouldn't have, even if it works perfectly. Finally, they expect you to rehearse a presentation of a few lines of code you wrote weeks ago. If it wasn't authentic, you're out. If you want a tip, ask beforehand if what you plan to use is approved to save time, get the interviewers' 'blessing' because in my case, it seems that's what was missing.