The CEO was late, and immediately took control of the conversation in the worst way. He'd ask a question, let me get halfway through answering, then cut in with something completely different. When I tried to finish my point, he acted like I was being stubborn. The worst part was how he twisted things. Any time I questioned an approach or asked for clarity, he made it seem like I had an attitude problem. It wasn't a conversation, it was a test to see if I'd join his weird cult of personality. His arrogance was staggering. Before we even spoke, they made me write long answers about why this company specifically. Not "tell us about yourself," but "convince us you want this more than anything else." Looking back, that should have been enough. I did some digging after. The early feedback from past employees painted the same picture I saw. Short-lived tenures across the board according to LinkedIn. During the interview, he kept throwing out weird theoretical problems that had nothing to do with what I'd actually be doing. When I asked how these connected to the role's responsibilities, he brushed it off and moved to the next hypothetical. It felt performative, like he wanted to show how smart he was rather than assess if I could do the job. They make a big deal about being ultra-selective. After going through it, I think it's less about finding top talent and more about filtering for people who won't push back.

The interview process at Anima was by far the worst of my job hunt. The interview took weeks to be scheduled, which for an early-stage startup I found odd. The interviewer then showed up late. During the interview the questions are designed purely to catch a candidate out vs. allowing them to demonstrate their competence and desire. Some questions were outright hostile to candidates. It's a very old school way of hiring and a poor reflection of the broader culture at Anima. I left the interview (which then ran 30 minutes over) feeling like I dodged a bullet.