Interview Experience The interview felt misaligned within the first few minutes, with a clear indication that my profile may not be considered a fit. Despite this, the conversation continued for ~30 minutes without a meaningful attempt to evaluate my experience. Only a few questions were asked, while most of the time was spent on the interviewer sharing personal views on hiring, compensation, and career paths. Even after alignment on potential mismatch, the discussion continued in a way that felt more like a one-sided narrative than an interview. Key Observations * The interaction felt pre-judged rather than exploratory * Strong and repeated assumptions were made around compensation expectations and candidate intent (“driven by money” and engaging in offer negotiations) without context. * Comments were made indicating that such expectations may lead to candidates being filtered out without response, which felt more cautionary than evaluative * My experience was described as being “locked” into a broad role (“golden handcuffs”), despite it being a result of cross-functional ownership * Analogies such as comparing role fit to shaadi.com-style matching were used, which felt informal and not relevant to a professional evaluation setting. Interview Style * Highly opinion-driven and directive * Frequent interruptions and counterpoints * Limited opportunity to fully respond * A significant portion of time spent discussing the interviewer’s own experience, team structure, and responsibilities As someone working in HR, I found the approach concerning. Interviews should be: * structured * two-sided * and focused on understanding candidate context Continuing a conversation despite early misalignment, without adapting the approach, felt inefficient and at times discouraging. Final thoughts This experience highlighted the importance of ensuring that interviews remain objective, structured, and two-sided. A more balanced approach would significantly improve the candidate experience