I had two interviews: one over the phone, the second over Skype. During the first one, I was told they were urgently seeking someone to start but couldn't find anyone. During the second one, I noticed the interviewer's English was not the best. I wasn't asked a lot of questions specific to the role, which threw me a little. To my surprise, he told me I wouldn't fit in the team and my personality would probably not match their expectations. There was nothing in my answers which suggested this, but quite the contrary, my answers were in harmony with their collaborative culture. Given the fact he didn't know me, my working style and personality, I found this utterly unacceptable and judgemental. I did not make judgments about his character and personality due to my ignorance of him, so for him to do so demonstrates double standards. The most objective reason for making the unprovable judgement was probably implicit or explicit bias. As the academic literature maintains, one UNCONSCIOUSLY makes judgements despite only meeting you, giving misleading impressions. Now, since Make It Cheaper clearly have a very informal culture who like to party and have fun a lot, on balance, it is highly likely they IF they are cognisant of such subtle biases (which is improbable), they don't take it seriously. I have worked in an environment which was more informal than formal and let me assure you, matters which SHOULD have been taken seriously were not, so the same realistically applies to Make It Cheaper. Public sector organisations have several interviewers part of their panel and a numerical scoring system, knowing this reduces the probability of unconscious bias. By contrast, this company probably haven't even thought about this, so this type of bias would escape detection, by the very nature of it's unprovability. After two weeks of constantly chasing them up politely, I received no response. The hiring manager ignored me completely, until a Human Resource representative finally responded. Given their exceedingly laid-back, informal culture, it is easy to see why were this disorganised. They declined my application, due to the interviewers' allegations about my personality and I wouldn't fit with the team. However, the Human Resource representative told me that other candidates merely outperformed me, not that I was unfitting for the role. The hiring manager probably didn't want to relay anything negative, hence the reason he told the representative I was merely outperformed by other candidates. This demonstrates dishonestly and inconsistency on his part, because there WAS negative feedback he had about me during the interview. Their wish list was quite frankly, impractical. They wanted not only one with the highly specific essential skills and experience, but also a lively, bubbly, gregarious and outgoing personality. This is unrealistic because with the skills shortage in this country, to find talent with the right skills and experience is difficult enough, but to find such talent meeting their narrow personality characteristics is much harder. In particular, the role I was interviewed for DOESN'T NEED such a specific personality to help the company greatly flourish. Most technical people don't have the specific personality traits they want, and don't NEED to. This is precisely why they haven't found someone they URGENTLY want for this role. They are not down-to-earth and modest in their requirements, plus do not wish to embrace different personalities. They want people who are like them in as many characteristics as possible, hence it is questionable whether they employ people from different backgrounds. Contrastingly, the public sector is more diverse and open to recruiting those across diverse backgrounds and personalities, which is why you typically find them there. Several agencies have headhunted me about this SAME vacancy, which further demonstrates Make It Cheaper are not giving up, and are making life difficult for themselves to fill this urgent role with their airy-fairy requirements. Good for them.