The first call was an informal call, where the interviewer shared that it will be an unstructured and casual chats as as opposed to a structured interview. It was 30-minutes so largely introductory. After being moved to the next stage and interview, the interviewer said the next interview would likely be a more structured interview. However, that was not the case. The next interviewer also asked for an introduction and then did not ask any structured questions. Both calls felt redundant in structure, and the team never asked clear questions about my experience or impact in previous roles, since both calls were conducted as informal introductory chats. A few hours after my second interview, the team sent me an automated “end-of-process”candidate survey, which came a few hours after an automated link to a similar but separate “early process” candidate survey on the same day. It was a lot of emails related to a survey for one day. I was bummed, because the “end-of-process” survey was sent too early by a mistake and incorrect setup, so I discovered I was rejected before someone from the team told me. If the team used their ATS candidate survey as a more data-oriented solution, which is easier to reliably automate, and includes industry benchmark data, this wouldn’t happen. The lack of interview structure makes the process feel unfair and biased, and the automated emails sent in error created a poor candidate experience.