The interview process was excessively long, fragmented, and burdensome. It required multiple rounds, panel presentations, and strategic deliverables that felt disproportionate to the role and timeline. The cumulative time investment was significant, especially for a senior-level candidate balancing other professional responsibilities. At several points, the amount of detailed strategic work requested raised concerns about whether candidates were being evaluated or used to generate ideas. When an interview process begins to resemble consulting work without compensation, it signals a lack of respect for candidates’ time and expertise. There was limited clarity around timeline, decision-making authority, and feedback. The process felt inefficient and unnecessarily drawn out. Additionally, the panel composition raised questions about role clarity and internal alignment. Junior team members were included in evaluating a senior-level position, and some questioning felt more defensive than collaborative. For leadership roles, it is critical that interview panels reflect clear reporting lines and strategic alignment rather than internal role ambiguity.