>At one prominent tech company, I underwent 13 separate interviews for a single role.

In what insane world does this make any amount of sense?

I went through a loop at Meta that was probably 10-11 rounds. I would have done 100. The compensation is truly life changing and the engineering problems were world-class.

I'm sure OP is correct that this is a signal for a bad org - but from the outside looking in you'll do anything.

It really doesn't make much sense. The article was actually insightful on this point, or at least this matches my experience:

> it suggests they operate on a consensus-based model that stifles autonomy

The one place where I experienced a lot of rounds of interviews (at least 8 interviews, I think) was at the Wikimedia Foundation. It's an organization that is very explicitly built on consensus-based decision making. There were many great things about working there and at first it was very different from typical corporate culture. In some ways it was stifling, at least for someone who isn't a savvy politician. By the time I left in 2021, they had fully adopted the same kind of leveling system as discussed here, with all of the same political and structural constraints on advancement.

I did 13 interviews in 2 days at Microsoft Research (in 1998). I did not get the job.

I see that as a manifestation of Buridan's Ass --- when they're very indecisive about it, they will naturally try to measure more.