Accommodated my request to receive interview questions in advance, which I appreciated. Unfortunately, that was the only positive aspect of the process.
The feedback after the interview was vague, non-committal, and not constructive. It did not explain why I was unsuccessful or offer any meaningful insight. This raised a question, if there were issues with my application or suitability, why invite me to interview at all?
The process felt superficial rather than genuinely inclusive. As someone from a minoritised background, this interview reflected a wider issue within the arts and heritage sector, where diversity is often discussed but not consistently practiced in hiring decisions.
The arts and heritage sector is small, and professional networks are closely connected. In that context, the interview left me with concerns about intent and fairness. I had the impression that the process focused more on extracting best-practice insights and sector expertise than on a genuine opportunity for appointment. Combined with the lack of meaningful feedback, this raised questions about how seriously my candidacy was considered.
More broadly, this experience reflected patterns I have encountered elsewhere in the sector, where informal networks and entrenched biases can shape recruitment outcomes. For candidates from racially minoritised backgrounds, this can create a sense that interviews are not always conducted on equal or transparent terms.
Despite its public messaging, the National Theatre has a reputation within the arts and heritage sector for not being particularly inclusive or diverse in practice. Recruitment can feel closed-off and driven by familiar networks, which makes it harder for people from racially minoritised or non-traditional backgrounds to feel genuinely welcomed or taken seriously. My interview experience matched what I’ve heard from others and reinforced the gap between what’s said about inclusion and how it actually shows up.
