Emma Interview Questions
& Process

The first interview was a 30-minute session that mainly covered basic HR stuff to get a feel for my background, why I'm interested, and if I'd be a good fit. They asked typical questions about my history, what I'm good at, and what my career goals are, plus why I want this specific job. There were also a few case questions to see how I'd tackle problems in real job situations. I also had to talk about what I know about the company, like how it makes money and where it stands in the market, and why I applied. It was pretty much an intro round, mixing HR checks with a bit of looking at how I think and if I align with the company's vibe and what the role needs.

I went through a selection process for a strategic position focused on the Brazilian operation and ended up with a very negative view of how the interview was conducted. After the HR screening, I proceeded to an interview with the commercial director in charge of the Brazilian operation. During the conversation, there was a significant technical misalignment regarding how the Brazilian marketplace operates. Basic topics like APIs, integrations, the D2C vs. marketplace dynamic, and consumer behavior by channel were not discussed with technical expertise. I was asked to solve strategic cases during the interview. However, the discussion lacked clear evaluation criteria and context for the Brazilian market. At several points, there were interruptions and generic comments like 'perhaps that's not the best strategy,' without a structured or well-founded counterpoint being presented. The feeling was that the process evaluated agreement more than technical ability. There were also communication episodes that I considered unprofessional, with an ironic tone when discussing practical examples I brought up based on my almost 10 years of experience in Brazilian retail. For a strategic position in a specific country, it's crucial for leadership to demonstrate a minimum understanding of the local market or be open to listening to those who work in it. When this doesn't happen, the process loses depth and credibility. I started the process with a very positive perception of the brand, but I finished with significant doubts about the leadership's preparation and the alignment between the organizational culture discourse and practice.

There were a lot of consulting-type questions. I'd suggest getting ready for this kind of questioning. For example, they might ask "How many ping pong balls can fit in a Boeing airplane?" or "What is x multiplied by x?". The main point is not about getting the right answer, but showing how you think.

I got an automated email asking me to interview. After accepting, I received another email a few hours before the scheduled time stating they needed to push the interview back by six hours due to a lack of available interviewers. The interview itself was a casual chat about general marketing topics. What was odd was that none of the emails had a sender's name, and the interviewer also didn't introduce herself. I suspect my direct questioning about the company's hiring practices might have cost me a second interview. I'd noticed that this and three other marketing roles had been repeatedly advertised for the past seven months, with over 2,000 applicants on LinkedIn, yet they were still hiring. I asked her what the issue was. She didn't seem to appreciate the question, gave a vague response, and ended the call abruptly. It was quite strange. Subsequently, I received a rejection email stating, 'This decision is based on what we believe is best for both parties at present. We will be happy to consider applications for new positions again after a period of 6 months.'