Positives: 1. Everyone I spoke to was very nice and amenable 2. Everyone was willing to share and answer all my questions in what seemed quite an honest way 3. I loved the hiring manager's energy, very upbeat, personable positive and seemed like he would be good to work for Challenges: 1. Communication: The process took a long time, which I understand can happen but there would be long gaps without any updates. For instance, I had to nudge them to get the first interview as I didn't hear from them after receiving that initial email confirming they'd like to speak. They'd also say, we'll get back to you on Monday for example, but then I wouldn't hear anything for a long while afterwards. 2. Time investment: You're asked to prepare a detailed presentation around the 3rd stage. At the point they ask you to invest that much time, they should know that you meet their most critical criteria. I put a lot of time into my presentation only to find out they weren't going to take me any further based on things that they could have and should have found out in stage 1 or stage 2 of the process. 3. The interview itself: Stage 3 was an interview panel of 4 people with the presentation and questions. Some of the questions were incredibly incredibly broad which I found difficult to answer especially with my analytical brain. When I asked to understand what direction they were coming from, that clarity was not given. Having interviewed people myself, best practice is to make the questions as specific and clear as possible. From an inclusion perspective, specificity also takes into consideration all neurotypes. I'm not neurodivergent myself but I did wonder how certain people would fair with such broad questions that lacked specificity and direction. All interviewees should also be asked the same questions to ensure it is a fair process however some of the questions seemed sporadic and random. My recommendation is that interview training be given to all staff who are doing interviews whether they are the hiring manager/in recruitment or not. Lastly, and this was one of my main issues - the presentation was set up around a hypothetical scenario and I thought this was good and fair. However in the interview itself, some of the questions started to cross the line towards free consultancy. It was no longer hypothetical but, 'we are actually having X issue today, how are you going to fix it for us?' I understand the temptation to ask such questions but again, getting free advice and consultancy, especially if you're not hiring someone is crossing the line. Out of principle, I withheld any in-depth responses to these sorts of questions. 4. Perceived cultural issues: As much as everyone seemed nice, something I perceived in the interview panel was potentially an ex-Microsoft and non-ex-Microsoft hierarchy. There was reference to being ex-Microsoft and having worked with another colleague in the panel at Microsoft which I didn't think was relevant as no-one else on the panel shared where they had worked previously. It came off as name-dropping. I also wondered if there was a bit of nepotism going on where Microsoft hires are just bringing in previous colleagues they used to work with at Microsoft?? I understand how and why this can happen but the risks are it can lead to org division, hierarchy and lack of diversity in thought and approach. Although the panel was diverse (3 women and 2 were women of colour), the only white male (ex-Microsoft) dominated and everyone seemed to defer to him even though he was one of the newest people to join Equinix. I don't think there's any point having a diverse panel if there isn't going to be a sense of equality among them. I did notice these things and I think he could have been a bit more self-aware and dialled back his dominant energy somewhat as it was required in this setting.