I went through an unnecessarily prolonged interview process consisting of 8 separate interviews. Throughout the process I was repeatedly told that the next conversation would be the final step, only to have additional interviews added afterward. Finally, at the end of the process, I was informed that the role’s requirements had been changed and that I was no longer a fit. This experience reflected a concerning lack of respect and disregard for candidates’ time and professional commitments. I rearranged work obligations and took time away from my responsibilities to engage in good faith. By the 5th interview it was already apparent the process lacked discipline and respect for boundaries, but having invested significant effort, I chose to see it through. That part is on me. I should have walked away when the process lost credibility. Rejection itself is not the issue; that is part of hiring. The issue was the absence of transparency, shifting expectations, and a process that placed the burden of inefficiency on the candidate. That combination reflects poorly on operational maturity and leadership judgment. Organizations reveal their operational culture through how they treat people who are not yet on payroll and in this case the experience suggested misalignment between professionalism and conduct. Candidates engaging with this organization should heed caution and do so with firm expectations, clear boundaries, and an awareness that the process may not reflect mutual respect for time or professional commitment.