Macquarie Group Interview Questions
& Process

Had a quick screening call with an external recruiter, who gave some helpful info. Then, an interview with an internal person who seemed pretty senior. They didn't say how long it would be, but it ended up being about 30 mins total. The first part, around 15 mins, was about a recent incident. The second part, another 15 mins, was a LeetCode-style coding question. They cut it short because they had to go. I got feedback about 24 hours later saying they weren't moving forward, citing my incident response approach and a mistake spotted in my coding, which they said they caught early. My take is my incident response method is solid, and if they expect perfect code on the first try without testing, it might not be the right place.

I want to share my thoughts on my recent recruiting experience for the Executive Assistant job. The early parts of the process felt pretty solid. I had an initial chat with the recruiter, then moved on to a first-round interview with a really involved panel, and after that, I did a 1.5-hour assessment. After that, I had a second interview on-site. But then, nothing for about two months. The recruiter eventually got back to me, saying I was still being considered and that I'd get more info the next week. I figured that was a good sign and kept participating. But then, instead of hearing anything directly, I got an automated email to do a candidate experience survey. When I checked my application, I saw my status was updated to 'unsuccessful' with no direct word. Considering I spent over ten hours commuting for two on-site interviews, plus getting ready for the assessment, this way of ending things felt really off, especially for a company like Macquarie. Being upfront and keeping candidates in the loop is super important for a good experience, and not doing that reflects badly on the whole process. I'm sharing this hoping it helps make communication better and ensures people are told directly and quickly, which would make the experience way better and align with the company's values.

A consultancy reached out to me for this role. The whole process was quite long and tedious. They conducted one round each week. The consultancy's HR department wasn't very communicative about updates. Unfortunately, I was rejected after completing two rounds of online tests. Although the company's website stated that the online tests were not graded on a pass/fail basis, the consultancy's HR representative informed me that my test results were just average, and therefore the hiring team decided not to proceed with my application.

It was a pretty standard interview setup, usually about three stages. First, you talk with the hiring manager about your background, what you've done, and if you're a good fit. Then, you meet some of the team to chat about how you'd work together, solve problems, and jump into projects. The last bit is with HR, covering stuff like company culture, values, and pay. It felt pretty comprehensive but not overly complicated, aiming to see if it works for both sides.