I had my first round with HR, and it was a very pleasant and standard conversation. After that, I received a coding challenge, estimated to take around four hours. I spent a bit more time on it to ensure quality, though the task itself wasn’t particularly complex. Following the submission, I had a technical interview based on the code. That part felt a bit off — there were some internet issues on their side, and the focus seemed to be more on how the solution could be improved rather than assessing what I had already delivered. It gave me the impression that they may not have fully reviewed the code before the interview. The next day, I received a call letting me know they wouldn’t be moving forward. The reasons cited were that communication during the technical call was difficult — particularly my understanding of some of the questions in English — and that my solution didn’t return exactly what they expected. The feedback on communication was especially surprising, as it’s not something I’ve encountered before in my 25 years of professional experience. Overall, it was one of the most unexpected and unusual rejections I’ve received.

The initial interview was a masterclass in how to alienate potential talent. It was profoundly disorganized and lacked basic professional etiquette. The interviewer seemed to have barely glanced at my CV, dismissing my Fortune 500 R&D background with palpable condescension. The conversation was less of an exchange and more of an interrogation, marked by frequent interruptions and an aggressive tone that seemed designed to assert dominance rather than evaluate my skills. It serves as a cautionary tale of a culture where long-tenured employees appear to operate with unchecked power and zero training in candidate relations.