SUMMARY: an inexperienced and unqualified panel applying apathetically traditional interviewing techniques designed for junior candidates. Very frustrating experience. LONG STORY: As a project manager with 15 years of international experience I expected to be invited to a SENIOR management interview, in accordance with the job title. However, I soon realised the panel was made of people less experienced than me with little technical/scientific background (as confirmed by a check in LinkedIn). The 1.5-hour interview was structured upon a traditional and rigid behaviour-based technique which appeared to be designed for interviews of junior/mid-level project managers. During the meeting I perceived a disturbing lack of dynamism on the panel’s side. It soon became evident that the interview was run on the base of a ‘thick-the-box’ methodology. Although I was very interested in the position, I became increasingly demotivated as I realised the panel was not interested at all about my overall experience, skills and motivation, but they were proceeding in accordance with a predefined check list of specific basic skills (such as MS Projects which I have not used since I was a project engineer, even though I am still proficient at it) and related S.T.A.R. examples. The whole interview was driven by bureaucratic procedures rather than by a genuine exploration of the candidate’s knowledge and skills. Also, I had a strong feeling that what NPL were looking for was just a diligent project administrator rather a talented and versatile principal project manager. I concede that my interpretation and approach to the interview may not have been exactly what the panel expected, hence the negative outcome. I respect the outcome although I doubt the interviewing technique is adequate for screening senior management. I do not hide that this review is driven by disappointment, not so much for the negative outcome as for the confirmation of the rumoured negative features of NPL (i.e. incompetent and unqualified management, bureaucratic system, etc. as described in many Glassdoor reviews) which were reflected so clearly in just an interview. It is such a disappointment that a prestigious institution like NPL is left in the hands of such a rather tedious management. I hoped the interview could mitigate my concerns raised by the many negative reviews I read on Glassdoor, instead I got a definite validation of them. If this is the typical screening for ‘senior’ or ‘principal’ management in NPL, then I am not surprised the score of NPL management on Glassdoor is so low. I am sympathetic to all frustrated NPL scientists and engineers.