I had two stages of interviews. I thoroughly enjoyed the first round, which explored my skill set, eligibility and diversity issues. The conversations were meaningful and explorative - and I felt fairly treated by the two interviewers. They were also very kind with their treatment of me, before and after the first interview. However, I’ve written a review here, as I found the second interview to be concerning - and perhaps the organisation can take this onboard, as ‘food for thought’. The interview process was protracted over months, partially because one of the other candidates was unwell. That is fair enough, and it isn’t my intention to be inconsiderate or unkind - however this was exasperating, as it made it challenging for the remainder of candidates to juggle other interview processes in tandem (i.e. that concluded in days or weeks). In all honesty, I didn’t feel treated equitably treated, since my second round interview came to an abrupt end. And additionally, the second interviewer didn’t seem interested in discussing diversity (which is a topic that I’m very passionate about, hence my application to this organisation). It’s not my intention to sound rude or judgemental - however, I got the impression that her involvement in the organisation was for the benefit of being able to add something ‘edgy’ or ‘trendy’ to her Linkedin profile, as a hobby of sorts, or for ‘interesting’ PR for her company - vs something that she was genuinely passionate about. For example - she was reluctant to let me know what drew her to a leadership position within the organisation, and her views about the organisation’s future. I felt that it was a relevant space to potentially tackle experiences such as white fragility, and tokenism applying to ethnic minorities - especially since we were respectively, black and white women - conversing in the context of diversity and inclusion. ... I was professional, whilst objectively discussing these points - however the interviewer seemed quite uncomfortable and borderline agitated, which I was rather surprised by, given the nature of the organisation that she is co-leading. I would completely understand that reaction, if I had raised those topics out of the blue, in the context of a discussion with a male dominated entirely white banking corporate, for example. When I looked closely at the organisation, I observed that (regrettably) - a severe lack of ethnic minorities sit on their leadership team - which is a rather confusing message, in addition to my overall experience with DP. I voluntarily sent my feedback across after the process concluded. However, I didn’t receive any response or acknowledgement - so I’m not sure that they took any of it seriously - which again did make me wonder what the majority motives are with their running this organisation. I’ve raised this not as negative criticism - but simply as food for thought for them, to think about how they come across to the outside world - given the mixed messages detailed above. I didn’t receive an offer. I fully support meritocracy, and wouldn’t have wanted to be picked just for being a black woman, for example. However - I believe that it would have been beneficial for them to hire someone that had the relevant skill set and experience, and ideally somebody that (like me) was from an ethnic minority - and could potentially provide them with a marginalised perspective - that sits outside of their currently predominantly white middle class team. I had the relevant skill set, as I have 18 years experience carrying out the specific position they were recruiting for. It would be great for them to apply the same diversity that is found amongst their ‘fish out water’ YouTube series - to their leadership team. I’d like to make it clear that I DO find their work to be meaningful, and I’m really glad that organisations such as this exist - and I sincerely hope that they can take this as constructive criticism.