The interview process was disorganised and poorly managed, standing in stark contrast to the company’s “human-first” value which is listed first on their website. I was told the process needed to move quickly, with the successful candidate expected to start within a fortnight, so I made every effort to accommodate this urgency and attended both interviews at their convenience, as well as completing assessments. They were aware that I was juggling this with childcare. Despite that flexibility, communication then ceased entirely with repeated chaser emails from the recruiter going unanswered. When feedback finally arrived, it was abrupt, unconstructive, and noticeably lacking in balance, which was particularly disappointing given that the first interview had gone well enough to progress me further. The experience reflected a significant disconnect between the company’s marketed ideals and its actual behaviour. The leadership style, in particular, felt rigid and deeply institutional, more reminiscent of an outdated, top-down culture than the progressive, people-centred environment they claim to champion. Despite claiming to be “human-first,” I wasn’t asked to complete an equal opportunities form, nor were any accessibility measures mentioned or put in place. I was interviewed by the CEO, who opened the conversation by admitting he was “no good at interview questions.” I tried to make light of this to avoid starting on an awkward note, but it unfortunately set the tone for a disjointed and unstructured discussion. The lack of thoughtful questioning or genuine engagement made it difficult to have a meaningful exchange, and it reflected a level of complacency that felt entirely at odds with the company’s professed commitment to people-centred values.