I answered an ad from a recruitment agency. Having had a past relationship with the agent, she was able to vouch for my background and immediately pushed my CV to the client (Aztec). I was interviewed by a panel that included the hiring manager (less than a year in the company), his direct line manager (first day at the company) and the line manager's peer (a decade in the company). Interesting that three of the Melbourne team would eventually have less than year's experience within the company. The Melbourne office is a satellite of the Sydney headquarters but carries its own weight given the number of large clients in the southern city. The facilities are a little older, less modern and the interview room (a presentation room that seats 12) was a little dark with creaky and well worn (and low) office chairs. The two newer managers (hiring manager and his direct manager) seemed to be more energetic and welcoming while the more established manager (expectedly) felt to be more set in his ways. When I made comment about their major competitor, the established manager laughingly jibed about Aztec's superiority to them - his comment was "chalk and cheese" when in fact in my experience after working with both as a client was more white chalk and yellow chalk. The focus of the role was largely people management and maintaining the client relationship. When I stumbled on a particular people management question, the established manager signalled that I wouldn't be his candidate by promptly tinkering with his phone, cleaning his nails with his pen and other non-engaging behaviour while I continued to answer other questions from his colleagues.