Initial call with hiring manager (40 mins). Then a 90 min interview with hiring manager +1 other. This interview was the usual CV walkthrough, then several technical questions and then questions on their competencies/values. Although I was told that I demonstrated extremely strong technical skills and had a lot of relevant experience, I was ultimately rejected because one competency answer was considered “not strong enough.” Given the overall feedback, this felt disproportionate and suggested that the process prioritised rigid scoring criteria over a broader assessment of suitability for the role. I later discovered from an old colleague who moved to NatWest a while ago that internal candidates are able to access detailed competency marking criteria and interview frameworks via the intranet before interviews take place. This allows internal applicants to prepare highly tailored answers aligned to the scoring system, placing external candidates at a clear disadvantage and raising legitimate concerns about how level the process really is. The hiring manager later emailed to say that I had “passed the interview,” but then informed me that I had still been unsuccessful. The explanation given was that one of my competency answers did not contain enough examples of situations where something had gone wrong and what I had learned from them (this wasn't even the question - it was a sub-question/follow up, and I *did* give an example as well as refer back to earlier examples I'd given in the technical part of the interview which addressed exactly those points. The experience left the impression that success depended less on demonstrating genuine capability and more on presenting answers in the exact format expected by the marking scheme. The role went to a friend of the HM... Make of it what you will.

2 technical rounds, 1 managerial round, followed by HR round.