I went through several interview processes with different large companies, and unfortunately, a clear pattern emerged: unstructured interviews, unprofessional behavior, and evaluation methods that completely ignore the actual work. My interview process with Mphasis for the React Developer role was particularly striking. Today, I completed the fourth attempt of the first stage; in previous attempts, the interview could not be completed due to systemic issues (not caused by me). The questions were entirely theoretical and philosophical scenarios; I mentioned during the interview that these questions are not suitable for accurately assessing competencies in a 45-minute session. Interestingly, when I raised this point, I felt that the interviewer’s body language agreed with me. This naturally raised the question: If it is recognized that the system is unrealistic (and I am not mistaken), why is it being asked? Who prepares these questions, and what are they intended to measure? For a 45-minute interview, the scope and depth of the questions were completely disproportionate. The process seemed more focused on “eliminating candidates” and catching mistakes under stress than on measuring actual competencies. Honestly, it was one of the most inefficient and strangest interviews I have ever experienced. Independent of the questions, I also observed that companies sometimes seem to completely lose control of their own processes. Recently, I attended an interview at a bank; this was the second stage, and here the issue was not technical but entirely a matter of professionalism. Before the interview had even ended, while I was still on the Teams screen, the interviewer got up from their chair, walked away from the desk, and put on their jacket. I was still on the screen, and the conversation was ongoing. This small detail clearly reflects how candidates are approached. A Contradiction Experienced Live – Witnessing a Lack of Professionalism A recent interview at a well-known tech company was one of the most unsettling experiences. Throughout the interview, the interviewer continuously gave positive feedback; I could feel their enthusiasm and engagement with the process from start to finish. Using the STAR method and referencing my previous projects, I gave thorough responses and genuinely enjoyed the interview. However, during the interview, the interviewer received messages from their manager via the Teams chat. Immediately after these messages, their behavior completely changed: positive comments were replaced with tension, and the interviewer said, “I shouldn’t have commented.” In short, the evaluation changed live, based on internal messages rather than my actual answers. Later, I emailed the recruiter to express that the interview went well and that I was satisfied with the experience. However, the manager promptly marked in the system that “the candidate is not suitable for the client,” showing that the process was entirely formalistic and aimed at filling pipelines. Previously, while working with the same company’s global clients, I had been able to meet customer expectations, so I wondered why I did not fit this time; the process was entirely formal and focused on stressing the candidate rather than assessing actual skills. Overall, these experiences clearly highlight that large companies need to seriously review how they treat candidates and structure their interview processes.