PermitFlow Interview Questions
& Process

The interview process started off with a snag - the recruiter ghosted me for a scheduled video call. Turns out there was a family emergency, which is totally understandable. We rescheduled, and I made sure to be super proactive afterwards, following up quickly to keep things moving. The hiring manager seemed really eager to fill the position and was very personable, indicating they needed help and wanted to move fast. He was always responsive to my emails, which often included the recruiter. However, the recruiter's communication was pretty much nonexistent for most of the process. A big part of the interview involved an ADU-style project that took a lot of my time, and frankly, it felt like that effort wasn't really acknowledged. After that, there were several more interviews, including one with the Chief of Staff, who was new to the team. The company culture definitely has a 'hustle' vibe. The hiring manager spent an extra 30 minutes with me, and his positive words made me think an offer was likely if it were up to him. But, things changed after talking to the Chief of Staff. During that interview, I was asked to rank what's most important to me in a company. I said work-life balance was third, explaining that while I can put in long hours when needed, I'm not interested in doing it just for show. I value efficiency and results, and some weeks need more time than others. Sustainable performance is key for me. After that, the mood clearly shifted, and I suspected a decision had already been made. The organization seems to value constant overextension and performative hustle over actual results. They were close to their Series B funding, and he mentioned they didn't want anyone 'getting a free ride.' I'm well-qualified and was looking for a role where I could perform at a high level while balancing family. Not everyone is aiming for the very top, and experienced professionals who want to do good work without playing political games are valuable. I understood the role's demands and felt confident I could meet them. This role might suit those who like a hierarchical setup, but perhaps not experienced folks looking for autonomy, efficiency, and sustainability. Five days after my last follow-up, I got a generic rejection email from the recruiter, despite all the time I invested. I think the people there are probably well-intentioned and hardworking, but ego and control seemed to get in the way of trusting the hiring manager. Empowering managers and valuing results over bravado would be beneficial. This job might be a good fit for those who thrive in a hierarchy-driven environment, but maybe not for experienced professionals seeking autonomy, efficiency, and sustainability.

The recruiter responded quickly and was pleasant but lacked detailed knowledge of the role. They indicated I would advance to the next interview stage after completing a short exercise. However, the exercise determined if I'd proceed at all. This unpaid, 3-day take-home assignment required creating a comprehensive guide on obtaining an ADU permit in San Francisco within 1-3 hours. Given the complexity and frequent changes in California permitting, especially in San Francisco, this was an unrealistic request. This is characteristic of startups founded by engineers/MBAs who misunderstand the industry. After I submitted the exercise, I was rejected without explanation, despite the recruiter implying the next interview was confirmed. The process felt unorganized and disrespectful, with an inadequate salary offer. Permitflow's product currently seems to be a UI for permit expediters, not an innovation. Their core business is Permit Operations, and they're hiring mainly for that. They might innovate if they develop AI plan check, but it seems like a long-term prospect for a startup. Much of the hiring is for Permit Operations.

The hiring process was not ideal. As a recruiter, I have insights into how hiring should be done. Basically, expectations were not clearly set from the start about the process. I was asked to complete multiple take-home assessments and then was ghosted. This is not a great candidate experience and could be significantly improved. I was initially contacted by the cofounder/CTO and then referred to their recruiting team. I had a good conversation with a recruiter named Andrew. He was interested in my background and indicated the next step was speaking with the CEO. A good recruiter should outline the hiring process steps in the initial conversation, which didn't happen here. I assumed the next step would be an email to schedule time with the CEO. Instead, I was told, 'Hey I forgot to mention, but we like all candidates to complete an aptitude test.' While not ideal, I completed it. Afterward, I received an email to speak with the CEO. The conversation with the CEO went well, and he wanted to move me forward. Then, I was asked to complete a second take-home assignment. Having recruited for over 15 years, I would never recommend two separate take-home tests in a hiring process; it's excessive. This could have been avoided if expectations were set upfront. I completed the second take-home assessment, which took about 1.5 hours. It's now been two weeks, and I haven't heard back.

First, we'll do a quick screening of your resume, ask you to do a video intro, and answer some initial questions. Then, you'll get a case study about permitting requirements that you need to finish within a set time. After that, there's a theory part where you'll do some asynchronous training courses. The next step is a 4-week trial where we'll evaluate you weekly. If all goes well, we'll make an offer and get you fully onboarded to PermitFlow with a standard 40-hour work week.