I went into this process really excited about the opportunity, but unfortunately had a very negative interview experience that completely changed my perception of the company. I interviewed for an associate-level People Operations role, which already raised some questions given the preferred job requirements (including a Master’s in HR) paired with a relatively low salary range (50 - 80K) and a highly intensive interview process. The process began with a take-home assignment (about 1.5 hours) focused on attention to detail, followed by a 45-minute interview with a Senior HRBP. Even at the first stage, the interview was unusually in-depth, including a request to walk through my decision-making process spanning over a decade (from choosing a university to present day), along with a deep dive into past projects. The second round was a 90-minute interview with the VP of People Operations and was one of the most difficult and uncomfortable interview experiences I’ve had. The interview began with unclear expectations about providing an example to be evaluated, with the warning that “some candidates pick a bad example and get stuck.” From there, the conversation felt less like an evaluation of my experience and more like repeated attempts to challenge or discredit my responses. When answers didn’t meet expectations, I was asked multiple times to come up with entirely new examples on the spot, which made it difficult to engage in a thoughtful, structured conversation. At one point, when I shared a professional accomplishment I was proud of, I was met with a dismissive response questioning why I would feel proud of that work. While I understand and respect having a high bar for talent, the tone and approach felt unnecessarily adversarial and really discouraging. Interviews should absolutely challenge candidates, but there is a difference between rigorous evaluation and creating an environment where candidates feel undermined.