As FishingBooker emphasizes transparency as one of its core values, I would like to offer equally transparent and honest feedback regarding my experience in your hiring process. After submitting two voice recordings and my CV, I was invited to the Open Day (second round), which lasted an entire working day and was conducted fully in English. This required me to take a day off work and invest a significant amount of personal time and effort. A few days later, I was informed that I had successfully progressed to the final, third round – the Cultural Fit interview – again conducted entirely in English. During this final interview, I was asked whether I would mind working on adopting a more American accent, as I was told that “our captains communicate better with support agents who have an American accent.” I clearly stated that I was open to improvement and willing to work on it. Despite completing all three stages and expressing flexibility, I was later informed that the owner was consulted about the possibility of an accent-related course and declined, stating that people are needed immediately. This effectively ended my candidacy. I find this outcome highly problematic. Rejecting a qualified candidate after multiple interview rounds — based not on English proficiency, clarity of communication, or professional competence, but on the absence of a native American accent — is, at the very least, discriminatory and deeply unprofessional. Throughout my international career, English proficiency and effective communication were always the standard; never once was a native American accent a requirement. This has not been an expectation in any serious international company I have worked for. FishingBooker often positions itself as the “Booking.com of fishing.” However, with hiring practices such as these, that comparison is difficult to justify. Global companies value diversity, competence, and inclusive communication — not accent-based filtering that borders on linguistic and cultural bias. This approach does not encourage qualified and experienced candidates to apply. On the contrary, it discourages them, as the process requires a substantial investment of time while offering little transparency about non-negotiable criteria that ultimately disqualify them. Candidates who are otherwise highly suitable may never be selected simply because they do not “sound American enough.” If a native American accent is, in fact, a strict requirement, it raises a valid question: why not hire Americans directly? Instead, local candidates are held to an arbitrary standard, while being offered compensation that would hardly attract U.S.-based professionals. I am sharing this feedback not out of bitterness, but out of respect for the value you publicly promote — transparency — and out of genuine concern for the candidate experience and your employer brand. I sincerely hope this feedback will be taken seriously and used to reflect on and improve your hiring practices going forward.