The application process was excessively long and poorly structured, especially considering this is a relatively unknown consulting boutique. The position I was interviewing for was actively advertised. However, when I asked about timelines, it became clear that there was no real urgency on the company’s side to fill the role. This lack of urgency was also reflected in the overall length of the process and the long gaps between interview stages. From a candidate’s perspective, it felt as though limited consideration was given to the time and effort candidates invest, including preparation for each round. In total, the process consisted of seven interviews, with two to three weeks between each stage, resulting in an unnecessarily long and inefficient overall timeline. While the intention may be to carefully select the right candidates, the process felt clearly disproportionate. All interviews were conducted as one-on-one interviews, without panels or structured joint assessments. This further increased the feeling of subjectivity, as evaluations appeared to depend heavily on individual interviewers rather than on consistent or standardized criteria. The interviews themselves were often superficial and unstructured and were largely conducted by consultants who appeared very junior and inexperienced. While some interviewers were genuinely friendly and pleasant to speak with, others came across as arrogant and condescending, leading to an inconsistent and at times uncomfortable candidate experience. In addition, some interviews were scheduled at rather unusual times, with one session extending until around 7 p.m. At that point, the interviewer appeared visibly tired and rather unmotivated, which further affected the professionalism and quality of the conversation. Given the number of interview rounds and the stated goal of finding the “right candidate”, it felt misaligned that large parts of the selection process were led by very junior interviewers with limited professional experience (some of them former interns and only recently being in consultant roles for only one year or less). In addition, there appeared to be a high degree of homogeneity among interviewers, reinforcing the impression of a narrow evaluation perspective. Besides a market sizing and Excel exercise, one stage of the application was supposed to be a case study interview. However, the interviewer appeared to come up with the case on the spot. I was given approximately five minutes to prepare, without receiving a proper written case or structured information. Instead, the case was explained verbally in a highly improvised manner, lacking the data and clarity typically expected in a consulting case interview. During this stage, the interviewer asked me which position I had applied for, indicating that my CV had not been reviewed beforehand. I was also asked questions that suggested a lack of awareness of my professional background, despite this being clearly outlined in my CV. It seemed that there was no real interest in preparing for or leading the interview, and the interviewer was seriously lacking professionalism. Given the length and number of interview stages, this was particularly disappointing. In addition, the interview was abruptly cut short, leaving no opportunity for me to ask questions. Considering the significant time and preparation invested by candidates, this felt disrespectful and further detracted from the overall experience. That said, HR was consistently friendly, responsive, and clearly made an effort to manage the application process professionally, which stood out as one of the few positive aspects. Overall, it was unclear to what extent all interviewers were adequately prepared or trained to assess candidates. The evaluation criteria felt subjective and inconsistent, reinforcing the impression of an arbitrary, poorly organized, and candidate-unfriendly application process. Overall, the experience left a negative impression and raised concerns about internal organization, interview standards, and respect for candidates’ time.