The thoroughness of the process was evident. It was clear that they were committed to ensuring a mutual fit. I engaged in three interviews with Managers and Directors, and was also encouraged to spend three hours at the branch to further assess compatibility. There is also a general test and a personality test.

*An hour full of Red Flags* During the first stage, I had a quick phone call where I discussed my employment and educational history. I was also asked about my sales experience and how I would potentially sell products and services to future customers. Following that, I was invited for an in-person interview at one of their Kent branches. The interviewer was friendly. I found it odd that they were hiring in multiple branches in the Kent area, but after reading the reviews, it became clear why. Throughout the interview, the emphasis was on how the initial years are “hard work,” stressing the need for someone who won’t quit, indicating a potential high turnover issue. They highlighted the requirement for long hours (unpaid) and weekend work every week, a condition that would have led me to decline an offer. Moreover, when discussing current employees, there was a conspicuous emphasis on their tenure and earnings, suggesting an attempt to cover up a high turnover rate. The salary they were proud of was significantly lower than that of other advisors in the area, especially considering the demanding hours. The undisclosed salary on the job spec turned out to be in the “low 20’s,” which, coupled with the lack of transparency, raised concerns, especially since the basic pay was lower than other firms in the Kent region. In conclusion, there is a need for a change in their interview style and pay structure to attract candidates instead of discouraging them.