I was contacted by a recruiter from Flock about a leadership position they were looking to fill. After an initial 30-minute call discussing the company's details, structure, and mission, I was scheduled for a follow-up with the hiring manager. Given my previous company's partnership with Flock, I was already familiar with their product suite and the leadership role they were targeting.
The call with the hiring manager was productive; they were sharp, and we covered standard interview questions, with ample time for me to ask my own. Five days later, I received a text from the recruiter to set up a 30-minute conversation with a potential peer in the role—a person I had previously worked with but not directly.
This third call was more conversational and less structured. It felt like one of those interviews where you need to quickly highlight your career achievements, as it seemed they might not have fully reviewed my resume. The conversation went well, although the interviewer seemed a bit distracted.
After this call, there was a week of silence, then two weeks. In my previous role, I often referred clients to Flock, and the most common complaint was their lack of responsiveness. Curious about their follow-up process, I decided to wait for a rejection letter. After three weeks with no word, I texted the recruiter—no response. At four weeks, I emailed them, questioning why there was no communication after three interviews for a director-level role. Again, no response.
Overall, while Flock initially tried to present a positive front, my experience revealed significant distractions and a lack of follow-through that dove head first into the unprofessionalism that plagues so many corps today.
