I want to share something honestly, because I think it's actually useful. Four months of screening, 1:1, team interview, stakeholder round. Each stage requiring me to initiate the follow-up just to confirm I was still in the running. That's not a process, that's an endurance test, and those don't screen for the best candidates. They screen for the most needed of a job which isn't a bad thing for the one that gets it, but those that wasted their effort, its honestly devastating.
What made it harder to stay invested wasn't the length. It was a comment from the stakeholder round that I haven't been able to shake: "We wouldn't change anything about what we do." If that's true, and I believe it was said sincerely, then the more important question isn't whether I'm the right candidate. It's whether the role itself is solving a real problem or filling a box on a chart.
I came in ready to build something. That's what I do and do well. But you can't build in an environment that's already decided there's nothing to fix.
The process had all the right ingredients: thoughtful team, interesting conversations, a role that on paper had genuine scope. But the experience of moving through it felt like I was auditioning for a room that hadn't fully decided it wanted a show. The lag between stages, the silence, the burden of follow-up landing entirely on me as the candidate. None of that is neutral. It communicates something, even when that's not the intention.
I left the process feeling like I had to prove my worth to people who hadn't yet proven the opportunity was worth my focus. That's a dynamic I'm not willing to normalize, and I'd gently offer that it's one worth examining on your end too.
The best candidates, the ones you actually want, are being recruited in parallel. A process this slow, with this little structure, won't hold them. And it shouldn't.
I genuinely wish the team well. I just think you deserve to know what the experience actually felt like from the other side of the table.
