The interview process was disorganized from the start. In one instance, a recruiter communicated in a vague, ambiguous way about whether I was moving forward, stringing me along through multiple emails. It felt unprofessional. During an interview with the Director, she admitted the department had no properly documented processes and that she was constantly putting out fires. The impression was of a chaotic, reactive environment with no clear plan for improvement. If there are no properly documented processes internally, one can only imagine what the quality of work looks like for their clients. I interviewed a second time and had a strong screening call with a much more competent recruiter. Then the job description changed mid-process, suddenly requiring more years of experience than originally listed. The recruiter told me I had interviewed very well, but the hiring manager was fixated on the experience gap, despite the fact that my resume reflects strong performance and I had previously served as a department lead in another industry. I applied one final time to a role that matched my experience level and didn't receive so much as a phone screen. A recruiter viewed my LinkedIn profile and rejected me within the hour. Overall, leadership seems unable to run a tight, professional hiring process. It's a shame, because the dysfunction was apparent enough that someone like me could have added real value, not just in the role itself, but in helping bring some order to the department. If this company struggles to attract or retain good people, the hiring process alone should tell you everything you need to know.