The process: Three rounds including two genuinely strong conversations with VP-level leaders who were engaged and enthusiastic. The peer round was a different experience entirely — the dynamic felt more like gatekeeping than a genuine two-way conversation, with little curiosity about my background or experience. The communication: After the final round, the team committed to following up within a week. They didn't. When I followed up myself, they re-engaged and again promised feedback. That also never came. Two commitments made, neither kept. For candidates who invest time across three rounds, that's not acceptable. The culture observation: The VP-level leaders came across as relatively new to the organisation and brought a noticeably different energy than the longer-tenured peers. Based on Glassdoor reviews I'd read before interviewing, this tracks — there seems to be a meaningful cultural split between newer leadership trying to build something and an entrenched layer that isn't necessarily aligned with that direction. For candidates: The senior conversations are worth having and the role is interesting on paper. But go in with eyes open about the communication culture and don't make decisions based on timelines they give you — they may not be honoured.