As of today, my first positive outreach from Tulip was over a month ago. In the time since, I had basically two touch points, one of which was an initial screen that started ten minutes late. It was clear to me after the first conversation that they likely wouldn't be interested in my background, but in an extremely disorganized fashion, the team led me on. My last touchpoint was indicative of the process: it was established we would set up next steps and another conversation. Then radio silence for a week. Then I emailed my point of contact, and she said she would get back to me right away. Then another 4 days passed. Then the hiring manager emailed me a polite but out-of-nowhere rejection that featured the same reasoning that was clear to them three weeks ago the first time we spoke. My conversations with folks were polite enough, but no one knows what they're doing around candidate experience, and for an org with this type of funding, it's a pretty unpleasant surprise how little they have their stuff together. They will probably hire someone strong for this role, but there is collateral damage being done when you treat candidates this poorly.

The recruiter reached out within a week of application submission, which was a positive sign. From there, the process revealed some structural concerns worth noting for prospective candidates. The initial screening call started approximately 10 minutes late with no acknowledgment. The conversation itself suggested limited preparation — questions were surface-level, largely redundant with information already detailed in my resume, and did not reflect a clear understanding of my background or the seniority of the role. Attempts to provide substantive, example-driven responses did not appear to land, as the engagement level throughout the call was noticeably low. Four business days after the call, I received a standard rejection email citing a decision to "move in a different direction." What gives me pause is not the rejection itself, but the disconnect: my background maps directly to the stated requirements in the job description — not adjacent to them, but precisely aligned. That outcome, paired with the quality of the screening conversation, suggests the organization may not yet have a clearly defined picture of what they need in this role. For a VP or C-suite search, clarity of vision at the recruiter level is foundational. When that clarity is absent early in the process, it tends to reflect something broader about how the hiring function is structured internally. Candidates at this level should go in with calibrated expectations and be prepared for a process that may not match the seniority of the role being filled.