The interview process for this role was extensive, spanning four rounds over the course of four weeks, conducted in person. 1st Round: This round involved the hiring manager and their subordinate, with HR joining midway. The hiring manager confused my name with someone else's, indicating a lack of preparation. I was only informed of HR's presence halfway through the interview. The session was relatively pleasant but had its issues. The focus was primarily on understanding my daily responsibilities. An uncomfortable moment occurred when HR inquired about my salary flexibility in front of the hiring manager's subordinate. 2nd Round: The second round was with two scrum masters who were late to the interview. Their approach was disappointing—they seemed fixated on a single solution to every problem, such as always implementing a workaround without informing anyone when faced with stakeholder rejection, rather than investigating the root cause. This narrow mindset felt unprofessional, and the interview, which was scheduled for 30 minutes, extended to 1.5 hours only ending when one of the scrum masters had to leave. The remaining scrum master provided a significantly different job description than what was previously communicated by the hiring manager. Overall, this round was poorly managed and the scrum masters' inexperience was evident, both in being scrum masters and interviewers. 3rd Round: The third round was with the hiring manager's boss, who was also late. This session was brief and unremarkable. 4th Round: An additional fourth round was unexpectedly added to assess my technical skills. There were various justifications provided by the company and my recruiter for this extra round, including uncertainty about my understanding of the role, my interest in the role, and my suitability. This round involved a case study where I had 5 minutes to understand the problem, 40 minutes to execute it, and 15 minutes to present my findings. I was required to cover a go-to-market strategy, user process flow, epics, and sample user stories. After the presentation, the hiring manager and subordinate did not ask detailed questions. The subordinate’s lack of familiarity with basic terms, like 'Existing Conditions,' was concerning. Following the presentation, the hiring manager admitted to being a poor judge of character and mentioned difficulties with past hiring decisions. They revealed that frustration from the scrum masters over previous hires may have influenced their treatment of candidates. They also admitted that they were looking for an exact copy of the current subordinate to be hired into this role, which sounded disheartening. Despite positive feedback throughout the interview process, I was rejected the following week due to concerns about my 'technical' abilities. Overall, the process felt disorganized and inconsistent. The unconventional approach of having a subordinate evaluate potential peers contributed to a confusing and unsatisfactory experience. I encourage all involved in the interview process to reflect on these issues and strive for better. Clearer communication, more thorough preparation, and a fairer evaluation process would greatly enhance the candidate experience and contribute to better hiring decisions.