The interview process at GCI began with promise. The recruiter reached out quickly after my application and was highly communicative, even providing her personal cell number and encouraging me to text or call anytime. I appreciated that accessibility and responsiveness, particularly in an HR-for-HR context where professionalism and respect for candidates should set the tone. My first interview was with two senior HR leaders. The conversation was intense, rapid-paced, and more of an interrogation than a dialogue. It lasted about an hour via Teams, with very little warmth or effort to create rapport. It was difficult to read the room or determine how my responses were received. I left unsure whether I would advance, despite feeling I had represented myself and my experience well. Within a week, I was invited to a second interview with a broader team. This group was somewhat more approachable, but again, the format consisted of rapid-fire questions. The discussion felt less like an exchange and more like a working session where I was expected to provide immediate solutions to their organizational challenges based on my years of HR experience. At the end of that meeting, I was told they would complete the remaining interviews and follow up soon. It has now been over two weeks. I sent thank-you notes—no reply. I texted the recruiter—no reply. I followed up by email with both the recruiter and the hiring manager—no reply. The shift from highly engaged communication to complete silence is unacceptable, particularly from an HR organization that should model better standards of candidate care and professional courtesy. If a company decides to move forward with another candidate, that’s perfectly fair. But ghosting senior-level professionals after multiple rounds of interviews is not. It reflects a lack of integrity, accountability, and basic respect. GCI’s HR leadership should take a hard look at how this process represents their brand, their culture, and their credibility within the talent community. Do better, GCI.