Disappointing lack of transparency after an otherwise positive process I applied online for the Director of Internal Communications role and had what appeared to be a strong interview experience. Within a week, I had a phone screening with the recruiter, who shared that this was a brand-new role—a logical move considering the company’s plans to hire 200+ new roles in 2025. That initial call went well. Next, I participated in a two-person panel interview with the hiring manager and another team member. That also seemed to go well, and I was invited to a final round with two VPs. In total, I met with five people, all of whom I had thoughtful conversations with. During the final interview, one of the VPs mentioned that candidates typically hear back within 10 business days. That timeline came and went with no word, so I followed up with the recruiter. Eventually, I received a generic voicemail saying they’d “gone in a different direction.” I asked for more clarity, left a voicemail, and followed up via email—but only received a templated rejection response. While I understand not every company provides detailed feedback, the lack of communication after multiple interviews was disappointing. My background aligned closely with the job requirements, and the conversations gave no indication that I was off track. What’s more, some LinkedIn sleuthing revealed that the position was never filled. Instead, a different hybrid internal/external communications role was posted about a month after my rejection. It seems likely that the company shifted direction after interviewing candidates, which happens. However, a more transparent and timely communication process would have gone a long way in maintaining candidate trust. Ghosting or vague rejections—especially after several rounds—undermines the idea of being a “people-first” organization.