My interview with Elizabeth Lloyd (VP of Asset Management) was a disheartening experience that, in my opinion, demonstrated a significant lack of professional due diligence. Despite the recruiting team providing a comprehensive briefing on my background (including a short-term role I resigned from after uncovering executive corruption) it appeared that the interviewer had not reviewed these notes. This specific period on my resume was high-profile industry news that ultimately led to the CEO in question being publicly dismissed by their board. Rather than acknowledging this context, the interviewer explicitly labeled my resume as "dishonest," seemingly because she had not done the necessary homework on the provided briefing. In my experience, this interaction was not merely a "tough" interview; it felt demeaning, uninformed, and intentionally adversarial. When a senior executive substitutes aggressive assumptions for the facts provided by their own recruitment partners, it serves as a major red flag regarding the daily management culture. To me, a leader who is willing to be this dismissive to a candidate suggests a leadership style that could be demoralising and abusive to work for on a day-to-day basis. Ultimately, this interaction indicated a workplace environment that I believe would take a significant toll on any professional’s mental health. If an executive appears this comfortable being hostile to a candidate, it raises serious concerns about the impact they may have on their own team. I strongly advise prospective candidates to consider the potential psychological cost of this leadership style before engaging with the firm.