I applied for a Director of IT role and unfortunately found the interview process to be disorganized and, at times, lacking basic professionalism and respect for candidates' time. Communication was a significant issue. Emails often went unanswered for weeks or even months. I initially applied in April, and it was not until October that I was informed the role had been cancelled. Later, I learned that the position was ultimately filled in December by someone with personal ties to the organization, despite having limited background in current IT practices and trends. The process included an unusually large final panel of forty-six people. During that interview, I shared my approach to leading with empathy, supporting team development, and using technology as a strategic tool rather than just a utility. I emphasized my willingness to be hands-on and assist in modernizing what appeared to be a long-neglected technology stack. I also provided ideas on how to reduce costs while building a more scalable and resilient infrastructure. Unfortunately, none of this seemed to be seriously considered. Throughout the process, I was asked to provide several detailed write-ups, including 30/60/90 day plans, strategies for staff and technical development, and modernization proposals. It became clear that my ideas were used internally without credit or follow-up. There was also very poor communication within the tribe itself, leading to conflicting messages and unclear next steps. A year later, the organization has posted a new IT Manager role to support the Director. This development suggests that their earlier decision to hire based on personal connections rather than qualifications has not produced the desired outcomes. If you value transparency, integrity, and a respectful hiring process, I would recommend proceeding with caution. While the mission of the organization may be admirable, the way candidates are treated throughout the process reflects a lack of alignment, professionalism, and accountability.