Hunter M.

I receive a high volume of inbound from candidates exploring opportunities at Adobe. One consistent pattern I’ve noticed is that many candidates reach out, but not always to the right Talent Partner. The key factor that stands out is intent. The strongest candidates are deliberate. They’re targeted, thoughtful, and make it easy to engage. Before reaching out to a Talent Partner, I’d recommend: • Doing your research to understand which organization they support • Tailoring your message to the roles they’re hiring for • Being clear about what you’re looking for and how it aligns • Including the specific req ID and your resume For context, I support hiring across Sales. If you’re interested in roles outside of that scope, I may not be the best point of contact, but I’m always happy to help guide you to the right one. How you show up in your job search often reflects how you’ll perform in the role.

548

25 Comments

Your polished launch story might be your weakest DoorDash interview answer. I've watched strong PMs tell textbook retrospective stories: clear problem, clean execution, impressive metrics, and still get passed over. After talking to PMs who've been through DoorDash's loop, one thing became clear: the story is usually fine, it just misses what DoorDash is actually listening for. Most candidates structure launch stories as: problem → solution → result. DoorDash interviewers are scoring something different: decision points, trade-off rationale, and what you changed about how you operate afterward. They call it "slope": how fast you learn and upgrade your playbook. When you say "we launched X and retention improved 12%," they're thinking: "Cool. But what decision did you actually own? What did you reject? What broke your initial assumptions, and what mechanism did you install so the same mistake doesn't happen twice?" Try this instead: Instead of narrating chronologically (we did A, then B, then C), narrate like a decision journal: ↳ Context: what was the state of the world ↳ Decision: what you chose and what you explicitly deprioritized ↳ Trade-off rationale: why, with what data or customer signal ↳ Outcome: measurable result ↳ Mechanism: the process, rubric, or ritual you installed so the learning compounds That last part, mechanism, is easy to skip. But it's exactly where DoorDash interviewers lean in. A mechanism might be: turning a failed launch into a monthly pre-mortem ritual your team now runs, or updating your launch rubric so you never ship without validating X and Y first. The contrast looks like this: Weak: "We shipped X and retention improved 12%." Stronger: "We bet on X instead of Y. Here is the trade-off we made, here is where that bet was wrong, and here is the launch checklist we now use because of it." They want evidence that you don't just ship well once. You get better at shipping. If your retrospective story ends with the launch, you're leaving the most important signal on the table. This is one slice from the Insider Loops DoorDash guide. We captured the complete DD PM interview playbook at insiderloops(dot)com.

37

5 Comments

Lately I’m hearing the same thing from multiple enterprise TA teams: AI-driven screeners (HiredScore, etc.) are becoming unusable because of indemnity and compliance risk. Some companies are even being forced to shut them off entirely. It made me wonder… What if the solution isn’t “more AI” but a human-in-the-loop layer that’s API-driven, fast, and fully auditable? Imagine: Recruiters (or the ATS) trigger a review Trained human sourcers verify must-haves against evidence A structured JSON verdict comes back with rationale and artifacts Recruiters confirm before taking action No automated scoring → far fewer regulatory obligations Still scalable enough to handle today’s AI-inflated applicant volumes A sort of “human verification infrastructure” that replaces risky algorithmic decisioning without going back to huge RPO teams. Curious what the TA world thinks: Is this the kind of direction we need in a post-AI-screening, compliance-heavy environment? Or does the future still belong to fully automated matching? Would love your thoughts.

15

4 Comments

🤝 Stop playing "Founder Tetris" with your calendar. 📉 If your lean process is just a chaotic mix of DMs and "Does 2:00 PM work for you?" emails, you aren't being scrappy. You’re being a bottleneck. Even a two-person dev shop leaks revenue when operations are messy. Here is how to stop the bleed: Kill the Scheduling Dance: Use a link Calendly/SavvyCal. Stop the 10-minute back-and-forth for a 20-minute meeting. One Source of Truth: If it’s not in the tracker Linear/Notion/Trello, it doesn't exist. Stop hunting through Slack threads for updates. Send a Loom or a clear text update instead. The Founder’s Rule: Your time is worth $500. Stop spending it on $15hr tasks. If a tool costs $20 a month but saves you two hours of headaches, it’s the highest ROI investment you’ll make all week. The Monday Mission: Pick one friction point today and automate it. 🚀 #StartupLife #ProductivityHacks #FounderMentalty #TechOps #ScaleSmartRepairbirds

1