This was one of the least transparent and most politically driven recruitment processes I have experienced.
I was initially approached for one role, then moved into a different role after positive client-side feedback, and then found the role being reframed yet again during interview toward a much narrower analyst-style remit. By that stage I had already prepared thoroughly against the written Product Owner brief and answered on that basis. The process felt confused from start to finish and gave the impression that candidates were being moved around to suit internal agendas rather than being assessed against a stable, clearly defined role.
The biggest issue was not the final outcome. It was the lack of honesty and clarity throughout. Different messages were given at different times about whether further interviews were needed, which role was actually live, who was driving the decision, and what the real scope of the opportunity was. The written spec suggested one thing, but live conversations often suggested another. It left me with the impression that the agency was either not aligned internally or was deliberately keeping the brief vague while trying to see where candidates could be slotted.
I also came away with the impression that parts of the process were politically managed rather than handled neutrally. During the interview, some of the framing of my profile did not seem to reflect what I had actually said about my experience and working style, which added to the sense that the outcome may have been shaped in advance rather than assessed openly against the written brief.
There were courteous conversations along the way, but the overall experience still felt like a poor-quality process dressed up as a professional one. From a candidate perspective, it came across as muddled, reactive, and lacking in transparency. At points it felt close to a bait-and-switch, with the role shifting materially after time had already been invested in preparing for something else.
My advice to future candidates would be to pin down, in writing, the exact title, scope, reporting line, decision-maker, and whether the role is genuinely approved and budgeted. Do not assume the written brief reflects the actual job being discussed.
What could have been better:
Almost everything around role clarity and stakeholder alignment. If the role is evolving, say so early. If there are multiple possible positions, be upfront about that. If the hiring team is split on what it wants, sort that out internally before taking candidates through repeated discussions.
Advice to management:
Candidates are not pieces to be shuffled around while an agency and client work out their internal politics. If you advertise a role, interview for that role. If the requirement changes, communicate it openly and immediately. A hiring process should not leave strong candidates feeling they were assessed against a moving target.
