The interview process was lengthy, disorganised, and repetitive. It started with a phone screening to assess my suitability, lasting nearly 30 minutes. Given the time invested, a video call would have felt more personal and engaging, but the questions were largely superficial. Frequent follow-up calls between stages quickly became excessive, as they often repeated information without adding value. The first formal interview with a founder felt like a guessing game rather than a genuine discussion about the role, expectations, or company. I was also informed that their U.S.-aligned hours mean a later start by an hour or two, with an innuendo that “top performers” work beyond standard hours. As someone who values work-life balance — and not yet their employee — I didn’t appreciate this implication of unpaid overtime. After the founder’s interview, I had a second formal interview with Learning and Development. During the several phone calls I had, I was assured that the third and final interview would be in person at their office in London. However, a week before the in-person interview, I was unexpectedly asked to accommodate yet another video interview with a different founder, which largely repeated earlier discussions and further extended the process. Finally, I attended an in-person interview at their Holborn office. After a confusing wait, two recruiters arrived without clear roles or structure for the interview. Questions were repeated, and midway, one recruiter left for a client call and never returned. Despite being told I'd receive feedback within a week, there was no follow-up. Overall, the redundant questions, lack of organisation, and failure to provide feedback left a poor impression of the company's approach to candidates’ time and commitment.