Google reached out to me through LinkedIn and asked to interview me for a product manager position at one of their satellite offices. They described it as a role that determines what products to make based on market trends and then builds them. They conducted two separate rounds of phone screens before deciding to invite me to Mountain View for a day of on-site interviews. Fairly normal for the industry, though unusual that at no time was I asked to talk with anyone in the office where I'd be working. Points of interest: 1) All interviews were identical, consisting of hypothetical scenarios that I was asked to re-design or improve like "how would you redesign a gas station to make it better?", "how would you redesign your favorite web site to improve it?", "what business opportunity would you tell LinkedIn to pursue to improve growth?", and "design the elevators for a 40 story office building and the best algorithm to fill and empty the building each day". Fun! 2) Only one screener asked anything about how I'd implement any of the changes I offered. 3) Although my recruiter mentioned they selected me because of my extensive experience, all my interviewers relayed that they'd graduated within the previous 2 years and had all their experience at Google. None could answer questions about how hard it was to garner support for their ideas or what their biggest challenge was in bringing a product to market. I expected at least one person in the loop to have a similar background to mine and test the breadth of my knowledge. It didn't happen. 4) All screening interviewers were currently working in the role I was interviewing for. No cross-group teams were represented. Maybe they would have included more perspectives if I'd done better during the on-site interviews. Since I don't live in Mountain View that seems like an expensive way to interview if in fact that's how it's done (repeat trips). 5) A screener commented "one of the best things about working here is that everyone works hard to build the best product and experience for the customer. If you can argue that your idea is better for customers, you win". When I asked how they research what's best for customers, he replied "that's a problem." I got the distinct impression that 'winning' depends not on what's actually best for customers but on what stakeholders imagine is best. 6) I did quite a bit of homework on the company before the loop. None of my interviewers asked me what I knew about the organization. They did ask me what my favorite Google product was and why. 7) My lunch host (not a screener) had the most experience, about 8 years in various startups in the valley. He commented that he'd been with the company under a year and expected to quit before two. He wanted to add some name recognition and credibility to his resume' but found it too frustrating to actually get anything done to want to stay. 8) I asked if the company had considered a way of using their search data to better target product opportunities (was quite specific in fact) and although it matched the core philosophy of the company founders was told my idea to drive decisions on massive data trends "would never work". I can't imagine how the on-site loop added anything to their phone evaluations. If I was the hiring manager and had only the assessments the loop did to inform my decision I wouldn't have hired me. Too little unique information and almost none about the hardest aspect of product management: execution. Likewise I learned too little about the position including the most important aspect of a new role at a new company - who would I be working for and what is their management philosophy? I would not have accepted an offer and wasn't surprised when the company didn't extend one.