I submitted an application to Hanover in early November 2013. I heard back from their HR representative in late November. I was then asked to complete an online personality/IQ test that assessed spatial, abstract, and analytical reasoning skills and competencies. None of this was too difficult -- just set aside time to complete it. I was then invited to participate in a phone interview in early December. Very standard questions: "walk me through your resume," "how do you approach a research question?" etc. I then had one week to complete a simple written assignment. A week later, I was told my paper received very positive feedback and was invited to an in person interview. My in person interview was in mid-January 2014. Read: just about two and half months after I submitted my initial application materials. I was told that they were backed up through the new year. I literally waited four weeks from when I corresponded with HR regarding the paper feedback, to the actual in person interview. Anticipating a faster process, I forewent another employment opportunity while in the interview queue. The actual in person interview was bifurcated: I met with two project directors, one of whom, I assumed, would have been my immediate project supervisor. The first interview went very well! Positive, engaging, and prospective: he seemed liked a really great guy and we engaged in a very spirited discussion about my research interests. The second interview was the absolute opposite. Just immensely slow, awkward, and boring. There were two main qualitative differences: 1). The first interviewer was quite affable, which felt disarming and positive. I think that's natural in any interview context: to meet people with varied personalities. No big deal. 2). The structure and style of their approach was confusing. I really liked the first interviewer because he asked open ended questions. I was allowed to elaborate and had a lot of latitude. The second interviewer asked me almost entirely close ended questions: "So you graduated with a degree in political science?" "Yep..." I would offer two suggestions to further improve recruiting processes. First, candidates should be provided with a realistic timeline for an employment offer. I would have benefited from this knowledge early on -- or maybe even an adumbrated version of it at the phone interview stage. Second, interviewers should be given some standardized set of questions or criteria to evaluate candidate competencies and interests. I really could not figure out what they were looking for, particularly in the second conversation. I also did not appreciate the varying unstructured and unexpected interview styles, although that may just be me. Some consistency would have been appreciated, that is all. Overall, I felt that the process ran very smoothly. All of my correspondence with HR was conducted in a way that was very professional and profoundly respectful.