Positive interviewers, but process lacked alignment and timely communication
I recently withdrew from a recruitment process for a Technical Project Manager position after completing three rounds of interviews.
The early stages of the process were positive. The interviewers were professional, the conversations were engaging, and the role initially appeared to be a strong match for my background in technical project and delivery management.
Unfortunately, the process became increasingly frustrating as it progressed.
Before the first interview, I clearly communicated my compensation expectations. Despite this, concerns around the compensation package only surfaced after three interview rounds had been completed. In my view, commercial alignment should be established early in the process to avoid unnecessary investment of time from both candidates and hiring teams.
There were also significant delays in receiving feedback following the final interview stage. After committing time across multiple rounds, I expected a more timely and transparent process. The lack of communication ultimately led me to withdraw my application and pursue other opportunities.
What was particularly disappointing was that the role was presented as a Technical Project Manager position, yet the feedback provided afterwards appeared to focus on criteria that were not clearly reflected in the job description or discussed consistently throughout the interview process. This created the impression that there was not full alignment between the advertised role, the interview panel and the actual requirements of the position.
I appreciate that recruitment processes can be complex, but candidates invest considerable time preparing for and attending multiple interviews. Greater clarity around role expectations, compensation and decision timelines would significantly improve the candidate experience.
