Applied online. Had a brief call with a HR recruiter from their offices in Georgia for an initial interview screen. Had a second HR recruiter call from their Richmond office 1 week later. Both consisted of general behavioral questions and a discussion of applicable work experience. Neither were difficult - interviewers did not seem too engaged or interested, rather they seemed to just be reading from a predetermined script. First HR call also had basic information requests (i.e, are you eligible to work in the US, salary requirements, current salary, etc.) A few days later I was contacted to move forward in the process for 3 different one-on-one meetings with 2 managers and 1 VP. Interview questions were all straightforward behavioral and "tell me about a time..." type of questions. There were no case interviews or analysis/skill set questions. I perceived this as a red flag in that the VP claimed they were looking for candidates with the ability to do analysis and think big picture rather than just those who would be doing basic spreadsheet work. True analyst interviews I've had in the past typically have been structured to evaluate analysis skills beyond the typical 'tell me about at time...' vetting process (i.e., case base - qualitative/quantitative). One question that threw me off during my first face-to-face interview was when the manager asked my salary requirements, current salary and then if I'd consider a contract-to-hire opportunity. I was surprised given all these topics are generally covered during the HR screening phase. Also the position was not advertised as a contract-to-hire position on their website. When I inquired about the contract-to-hire issue, I was told that they like to hire internally and when they look external they prefer to use the contract-to-hire option in order to make sure it's a good fit on their end and also the candidates' end. I found that a fairly lame explanation - they wanted to offer contract-to-hire positions because it minimizes the risk on their end as an employer and essentially places all the risk on the candidate. I told them that I was unaware the role was a contract-to-hire position and that I was interested in full-time positions. On a side note, the job posting stated they were looking for candidates with 5 years of experience and preferably a MBA. I found this interesting given they essentially were offering contract-to-hire positions yet looking for top notch analysts. From my observation of the current job market, mid to senior, A-level analysts are typically priced above contract-to-hire positions. Alas, given the nature of their type of work and company culture, offering contract-to-hire positions apparently has been sufficient to successfully fulfilling their demand for analysts in their business units. After my last interview I was told they would be making a decision very quickly and I would hear back shortly. A week later, after not hearing anything, I emailed the HR rep. A few days after that, they emailed back and notified me they were pursuing other candidates. In summary, the McKesson Medical Surgical business looks to have a bright future with a lot of growth opportunities (they bought out their biggest competitor in that particular market last year and are in the process of merging the business units). Can't quite say for sure what my exact reasons were for being rejected (i.e., been better candidates, responses to interview questions). However, I believe my unwillingness to consider a contract-to-hire position may have had an effect on their decision. In all fairness, this should have been addressed in one of the two initial HR screening interviews and/or their job posting online. Would have saved both parties time (i.e., I wouldn't have wasted a half day of vacation).