Where to begin, when describing one of the more unorthodox (and frankly, off-putting) interviewing experiences I’ve had in years? What initially appeared to be a great opportunity was revealed, over the course of several conversations during a lengthy interview process, to be a potentially Sisyphean endeavor in an organization with many significant issues. Below, I describe some of what I learned, with actual quotes from my interviewers. Perhaps, like me, you will seriously question whether you could work for an organization that “doesn’t believe in having a strategy” or operating goals (“because we have so much money”). Therefore, I wasn’t surprised to learn that millions have been wasted on ill-conceived and poorly executed projects. HHMI aspires to attract and retain great talent, yet some of its practices don't seem to support this. During my interviews, I was warned, “there’s no career path for this role.” “the pay here isn’t competitive,” and “titles here are deflated.” Obviously, engagement is about more than just those things, but they are factors nonetheless. While most of the nine individuals I met with seemed sharp, engaged, and strategic, and nearly all cited “the people” as what they love most about working at HHMI, I also heard them describe “mean-girl cliques,” a “double standard” by leadership around rewarding vs. punishing risk/failure, and an environment that’s both “highly political” and “extremely hierarchical.” I also found it unprofessional that what I consider to be confidential information (desired salary range) was shared beyond the hiring manager and HR. One interviewer felt compelled to mention it to me, after seeing it noted in my cover letter. Needless to say, I am not at all sorry to have not received an offer. I would have been hard pressed to accept one after everything I learned and experienced during the interview process. While HHMI is engaged in impressive scientific work, it still has much to improve on both culturally and organizationally.