Overall, I felt the interview process was broadly negative. Firstly, both interviewers arrived 10-15 minutes late for the interview, which hardly represents a good first impression. If you are planning on having an interview, be prepared to wait. Like any interview, how well the meeting goes is largely dependent on the interviewer(s) themselves, which in Towers Watson's case, was less than impressive. I don't believe either interviewer bothered to read my CV prior to the meeting. They were also clueless about certain qualifications I attained, despite the said qualifications being listed on the CV itself. I would have appreciated some effort on the interviewers side to do their research prior to the meeting. This was a shame, because otherwise I felt the interviewers were both courteous and friendly. Sadly, good character does not compensate for professional ineptitude. The interview was structured into two sections - a competency-based set of questions and an experience-based set of questions. The competency questions were largely formulaic and are clearly set by the company HR department. Sadly, many of the questions in this section are largely irrelevant to the role per-se and I believe are meant to judge how quickly an applicant can think on their feet and provide reasonably articulated answers, whether they are supposed to be true or otherwise. They are mostly made up of rhetorical questions, what-if scenarios and judgements one has made to previous, holistic exercises. The second set of questions are based on experience and are more typical of a useful interview. These include your previous experience, skills and qualifications which you can demonstrate are suitable for the role. So, for example, for my interview as an Investment Analyst, I quoted my knowledge on investment risk and how I used this knowledge in my previous position. In other words, these were questions on my actual knowledge and suitability for the job, not generic, ambiguous question about rhetorical scenarios. In conclusion, it was the lack of preparation the interviewers so clearly demonstrated prior to the interview which was most discouraging. That, plus the rather formulaic nature of some of the interview, made it clear to me that Towers Watson was not a company I wanted to work for. If the interview is anything to go by, then Towers Watson appears neither as a place for work-place dynamism nor a dedication to planning and prior research. Frankly, the interview made the company look less than professional.