Standard interview process started with the HR phone screen progressing to a telephone interview with two senior scientists within the Team and hiring manager/group leader. The next step was an onsite presentation (focusing on my methodological skills and breadth of projects I managed) and additional interviews with team members and senior staff. After the onsite interviews and presentation I was asked to interview with two additional individuals and prepare another presentation focusing on my experience with the therapeutic area of interest. These individuals would be stakeholders I'd be collaborating with. The onsite interviews went smoothly and I enjoyed meeting my prospective colleagues. I prepared a presentation that would address the objectives specified by the hiring manager. The presentation could not go into specific details due to the proprietary nature of the work. My understanding was that the hiring manager wanted to see the types of methods I used and rationale for using the methods to address different business and scientific objectives. The presentation was limited to 15-20 minutes. It was my understanding that the second presentation was to highlight my research work within the specific disease area and should be 15 minutes in length and to allow for 15 minutes of Q and A. However, the last interview was not conducted in this fashion. One of the interviewers lead and set the agenda and tone of the meeting. It was to start with brief introductions, and for me to go through my work experience from the beginning to my current position. This would be followed by my 15 minute presentation and Q and A. This immediately concerned me because this was not what was communicated to me and the meeting was only scheduled for 30 minutes. After setting the revised agenda, each interviewer described their background and current role at the company. The "lead" interviewer spent about 10 minutes describing his role and how he works with the group. After more than 10 minutes into the interview (setting agenda/expectations and introductions), I started describing my experience and was immediately interrupted while discussing my first job and asked not to describe the project. The interviewer spend 5 minutes discussing what he wanted to hear. Mind you, my first job was managing a 6 million dollar research study so it was important to discuss my role and objectives of the project. Regardless, I adjusted my approach and rushed through nearly 20 years of work. The same interviewer proceeded to ask me questions, and interjected his own experiences during my responses. After 45 minutes, 15 minutes beyond the intended time, the interviewer told me they had a hard stop in 5 minutes due to another meeting. To say I was concerned is an understatement - 45 minutes elapsed and I wasn't provided the opportunity to go through the presentation I prepared. The presentation was the pretext given for this additional interview. I offered to go through the presentation at that time and told them it would take 15 minutes, or if they preferred, I can present at another time. The same interviewer stated it wasn't necessary. Throughout the 50 minutes of the interview, the other interview said nothing. Also, the lead interviewer was a few minutes late, and obviously these few minutes were necessary. In a nutshell, my interview experience was satisfactory until the last encounter. Because I was not privy to the discussion between the hiring manager and the last two interviewers, I have no way of knowing whether the three were on the same page regarding the purpose of the interview. At least, the purpose of the interview as it was communicated to me by the hiring manager and recruiter. The last step of the interview process was misrepresented and mishandled. Prior to this, the feedback I got from the recruiter was very positive, and according to him he had to prod for criticism. I used the feedback when developing the script for my presentation. I felt comfortable with my performance and flexibility throughout the process. I agreed to four early morning interviews, preparing two presentations and interviewing with two additional interviewers beyond the original group. In the end I was not offered the position and the single reason given was not my technical skills to perform the job nor my personality. The reason I was given was that they were concerned about my ability to be concise with stakeholders.

“The interview experience was genuinely enjoyable, balancing professionalism with a welcoming and comfortable atmosphere. From the very beginning, I felt at ease, which allowed me to express myself more openly and confidently. The conversation was not only cool and pleasant but also very productive, as it gave me an opportunity to showcase my skills while also learning more about the role and the organization’s culture. I particularly appreciated the interviewer’s thoughtful questions and engaging style, which encouraged meaningful dialogue rather than just a standard Q&A. The environment itself felt collaborative and supportive, leaving me with a strong impression that this is a place where ideas are valued, people are respected, and growth is encouraged. Overall, the interview left me with a very positive feeling about both the position and the organization as a whole