On the WTW careers site, they emphasise the value of diversity and inclusion, stating that "difference makes us stronger”, my personal experience with WTW has been quite the opposite, I applied for a high-level tech position in the Enterprise Technology Consulting team, a role for which I am very well qualified. With over 25 years of experience. My track record includes leading projects for major global banks, ranging from critical security initiatives to large-scale cloud apps and infrastructure migrations. I've also designed solutions and led teams for regulated pension fund environments, with the largest fund exceeding $100 billion in assets. I've led government projects requiring the highest level of civilian security clearance, and I've overseen the design and deployment of numerous clinical care systems. Additionally, I served as the chief infrastructure and security architect for a PCI-DSS environment processing over $4 billion pa. I regularly deal with C-level executives, and having worked as a consultant I’ve been using the required soft skills for many years. I was given eight minutes of a half-hour interview to go through my CV as my interviewer spoke non-stop for the rest of the time! He then declined my application due to my ‘unstructured thinking’. I‘m diagnosed with ADHD and Asperger’s but never disclose them for various reasons, including the fear of discrimination, my desire for equal treatment and the fact that they should be irrelevant. However, neurodiverse people often possess intuitive and creative thinking and exceptional pattern recognition, abilities which may appear ’unstructured’ to the unenlightened but can be of immense value in tech jobs. WTW's claim that "difference makes us stronger" seems contradictory when they reject a candidate for thinking differently, especially without a clear definition of what is expected. It raises questions about WTW's hiring practices and its alignment with its stated policies on diversity and inclusion. Shouldn't managers be trained to appreciate diverse thinkers, and shouldn’t they be trained to listen, rather than speak non-stop? I provided my own feedback to my interviewer, referring to him as "Bob" to maintain anonymity. Here it is: I'm really annoyed at my experience with WTW as it is clear that the interview, and my preparation for it, were a complete waste of time. To be told I exhibited 'unstructured thinking' is just bizarre, not least because Bob spoke non-stop before giving me only a few minutes at the end to talk through my last couple of jobs. How on earth he can come to that conclusion is utterly beyond me, genuinely beyond me. I have an impeccable CV, impeccable experience leading huge projects and you would struggle to meet someone more articulate and capable. Unstructured thinkers are not entrusted with the security of huge PCI-DSS environments or clinical care systems serving 150,000 NHS patients. I have 25 years of experience, yet I was given no more than 8 minutes to talk about it. This meant I had to speak more quickly than I would normally and I had to intersperse my review with incidentals not on my CV (e.g. writing a cloud readiness assessment for a BU ) in order to emphasize my wide experience. This does not indicate unstructured thinking and for Bob to assume as much based on such limited evidence is ridiculous - something any good psychologist would agree with. It's so easy to fob someone off with feedback like this as it is entirely subjective and is decided at the whims of the interviewer. On what basis did he assess the structure of my thinking, and what units did he use? Well, he used any he liked! At best, I have been 'assessed' on an arbitrary and capricious basis, which is unfair and unacceptable; at worst the feedback was disingenuous. I am much inclined toward the latter as I have never been labelled with 'unstructured thinking' before and have no idea how, given such a limited opportunity, I could manage to appear so cognitively unstructured that it became clear I would not be able to perform this job. I would never object to being fairly denied an opportunity but this feedback is not a fair description of my thinking style, or my interview performance and in no way does it reflect my suitability to execute this role to a very high level. Unless Bob is a world-class occupational psychologist, his feedback on my thinking is not supportable, and even if he was, it would still take him way more than 8 minutes! For whatever reason, this decision was not made based on my suitability for this role, and it has resulted in a disappointing and dispiriting conclusion to my dealings with WTW. When dealing with a potential employer, the most important factor is integrity. Integrity really matters to me and I've seen scant evidence of it in my brief interaction with WTW. I'm left frustrated at the fact that I was never going to get this job and very annoyed that WTW has wasted my time.