Pros: Some interviewers were sharp and the workshop-style conversations were genuinely interesting. Feedback during the process sounded very positive. Cons: This was a long, time-intensive interview process (including workshops). I reached the stage where I was asked to provide peer references. I shared two contacts — only one was contacted. I was also told that a potential offer was being prepared. After that: over two weeks of complete silence, despite follow-ups. No clear yes/no, no timeline, not even a simple “role on hold.” What makes this especially frustrating is that late-stage communication impacts real decisions. When you’re told you’re at the reference/offer-prep stage, you reasonably pause other opportunities — in my case, I declined other roles based on the stated next steps. Being left without any update after that is, frankly, disrespectful. Advice to Management: Close the loop. Candidates deserve a clear update — even if it’s “still pending,” “on hold,” or “no decision yet.” Don’t request references unless you’re genuinely near a decision (or be transparent about what the reference step actually means). Set internal SLAs (e.g., 48–72 hours) for updates after final rounds/reference checks. Candidate experience is employer brand. Ghosting at the end undermines trust immediately. Bottom line: Parts of the process felt professional — but the lack of basic communication at the finish line made this one of the worst candidate experiences I’ve had.