I recently went through an interview process for a Staff Security Engineering role. The first interview with the recruiter was very positive. She was friendly, professional, and created a comfortable and welcoming impression of the company. Unfortunately, the second stage interview with the Head of Engineering and another interviewer was a very different experience. The overall tone felt rushed and impatient. The interviewers frequently interrupted and did not allow enough time to fully develop answers, which is especially challenging and inappropriate for a senior/staff-level role that requires deep architectural and strategic thinking. The questions themselves were complex and appropriate for the level, but the pacing and style of the interview felt more like a rapid-fire quiz rather than an in-depth technical discussion. At times, it felt as though there was little patience for thoughtful reasoning or structured explanation. One comment about “prompting” also left a negative impression, as it suggested assumptions about preparation rather than focusing on deeper technical exploration or real-world examples. Overall, the experience gave the impression of a lack of alignment with how senior security and architecture-level engineers are typically evaluated. For roles at this level, candidates need space to think, structure their responses, and demonstrate depth. Based on this experience, I decided not to continue with the process. I believe interviews should be a two-way evaluation, and this process did not reflect the kind of environment I am looking for.