I was not very impressed with my interview experience, which is why I am not upset with the decision made by CH on my candidacy. The initial interview was over Google meet with a talent team member, they could not answer any questions I had about the position/company benefits, pay, etc. I found this unorganized. We talked about my work experience, how I have handled situational leadership scenarios, and my career goals. There was then a case study that covered 2-3 situation and behavior based scenarios. It was complex and took about 4 hours to complete. I submitted the case study and heard nothing of it afterwards. (odd..) I was then progressed to meet with a director one week later over Google meet. They provided more clarity on the role (or at least what the role hopes to be) and we talked A LOT about my depth in decision making as well as leadership scenarios. We did not discuss the case study. I did not get the point of doing a case study if the materials weren't actually going to be reviewed, even if for a brief second. We did not talk about the company, the mission, the values - there was no picture painted for me as a candidate in what CH hopes to one day achieve. I asked some probing questions about culture and team, they gave very general replies. I did not get the 'warm fuzzies' about CH being an exciting place to work - it felt very robotic in nature. I caught on from an earlier stage in this process that they are interviewing candidates from day one to be "leaders" in the organization - I think this practice is good for someone at my level of experience, BUT I can also see the other side where they will quickly place candidates in a silo, who don't have previous managerial background or people leadership knowledge, to fail. Mind you - the role I was applying for was not a manager level position and I was not interested in a leadership position. I could also tell the company was winging it with the interview questions, which made me feel like there is not enough consistency between candidate interviews. (I felt like they were picking and choosing what Q's to ask and when) For it being an HR role that I applied for, this was a red flag for me. I left the interview feeling very confused about what it actually is that CH wants out of the employees - aside from understanding metrics. I continued on and decided to move forward when they offered for me to meet with the Chief Ops Officer. There was a quick case study to complete prior to the meeting where I answered 4 questions that we would discuss during our call. I personally found this to be the most enjoyable project up to this point. The questions made me truly think about my experience and decision making. I was prepared and excited to meet with them and dive deeper in. They joined via Facetime from a car. Red flag #2, immediately threw me off, made me feel like my time was not valued enough to have a formal meeting even though I was at the end of a long process and had scheduled well in advance. Continued to not get the "warm fuzzies" as he dove into the first question on the list and stuck only to that one question the entire call. Yet again felt like the conversation was winging it vs. being a consistent interview process between candidates. Yet again did not learn about the culture of CH, felt a lack of people leadership, nor felt like a picture of the industry was painted clearly. Getting these feelings from someone at the C-suite level was my final indicator that the company was not right for me. I did not feel like he wanted to be on that call with me from the moment he answered. Overall, this is is a start up in its earliest stages of immense growth. Coming from a similar org in the tech-healthcare world, I see where the improvement opportunities are when it boils down to candidate experience. I hope the People Ops team reads these reviews and takes candidate experience into heart when developing the TA practice. Interviews need to be a time where the picture is painted, the dream or mission of the org is clearly discussed and aligned with core values and principles - not just where you probe candidates with thought provoking (and often not tied to the role) questions about why they decided X value was more important than Y value, and so on. CH would truly benefit from aligning roles with competency based foundations (i,e Korn Ferry). To add, after all the rounds of interviews and case study's, I received a generic denial email. I responded asking for time to meet and learn more about my candidacy, as I was interested to know what expectations I missed (I am qualified for the role; if not overqualified) - I have not received response. Needless to say, I will not be applying for future opportunities, I wish the org the best of luck in figuring themselves out.