I first met with the recruiter who was informed on the organization and the role. It was a typical call to kick off. Second interview was with the hiring leader who is the VP of Product. He was approachable and held a great conversational style interview while setting clear expectations for what he is looking for in the role. Next interview was with the leader of Engineering. This person has a significant chip on his shoulder that resembles insecurity. He leans heavily on his FAANG experience and what the thinks you should do in this role from a FAANG perspective, which does not translate to a company of this size. He also is interviewing for an IC over a leader in his style and focus. This interview was often met with combative responses when I would reflect or dig into topics to continue with the interview. I did not receive an offer, however, I'm ok with that as I would not want to partner with the Engineering leader. I have worked with some fairly tricky partners and in a small organization, you need to be lockstep. This partnership and role needs to tighten-up before it can be properly hired. When I asked the 30/60/90 plans from the technical leader, he replied with, "you'll TPM a program" which didn't align to the thoughtful response of the hiring manager or the management requests of the role from the hiring manager. This role does include IC contributions but with a heavy expectation that the contributions focus to strategy building, executive mitigation, and repeatable processes to have proactive program management, any of this blurb would have been an acceptable 30/60/90 from the Eng leader in contrast to the combative response received. Be aware that this role has been open for more than five months at the time of this review. In this market, that speaks volumes to the hiring group over the candidate pool.