Round 1 felt fair — a straightforward task with clear expectations, and it was paid, which is more than many organizations offer. Round 2, however, felt very mechanical. The interviewer shot rapid-fire questions with no real engagement and left me almost no time to ask my own. It came across more like a box-ticking exercise than a genuine two-way conversation. Round 3 was the real dealbreaker. I was asked the same questions as before, there were unresolved tech issues throughout, and neither interviewer engaged with my background or examples. When I asked how they saw me contributing to the role based on my experience, the response was so vague it was clear they hadn’t taken in anything from my resume, cover letter, or earlier conversations. By that stage, the lack of preparation and attentiveness was really disappointing. An interview should reflect mutual respect and give a sense of how a team operates day to day. Instead, I saw disorganization, lack of focus, and little curiosity about me or my work. It was frustrating in the moment, but also good intel: if that’s how they run hiring, it likely reflects how they manage programs internally.