I was interested in the enterprise csm role, and the recruiter emailed offering me a lower position and way lesser salary than my current because I didn't meet the exact years of expeirnce as enterpirse csm. Why would one consider lesser role and lesser pay when searching for grotwh?

The process took just over 1 month from the date of my application. Initially I was scheduled for the following stages, 1. Screening call with a peer 2. Follow-up with a recruiter 3. Homework assignment / presentation 4. Panel interview presenting homework assignment, followed by "culture add" section with two other interviewers (a total of 2 hrs) 5. Interview with hiring manager 6. Follow up with recruiter. 7. Potential interview with VP of CS. All in all, a very significant time investment and multiple challenging stages to go through. Which all went exceedingly well until the presentation, for me. Initial screen was great, interviewer and I hit it off. I followed by creating a very thorough and informative/polished presentation. Then once I began the panel presentation is when things went south. Of the two interviewers I presented to, one was a MM Account Manager/TL, the other was a Sr. Ent CSM. The person with the senior title had less tenure but did most of the talking, offered significant negative input and unprofessionalism. Throughout my presentation she was constantly antagonizing me during the role play, asking questions that would never be presented in the manner that they were, and creating massive friction. Seemingly with a bias or some sort of negative perspective that was unnecessarily creating an unrealistic client perspective. It was borderline absurd, every input was vocalized with negative intonation and a hasty attitude as if this interviewers time was not worth spending on this discussion. More so, the interviewer was eating during the video call, which is something you shouldn't do given that you expect candidates not to. Towards the end of the panel, I asked for a quick check on feedback and one of the interviewers happily offered some inconsequential positive words. To contrast, the antagonistic interviewer condescendingly mentioned that her colleague was not following the rules. Which made me immediately glance to see the reaction of the nicer interviewer. Once I sent a follow-up email to thank both interviewers, as expected, the negative colleague did not respond, while the positive one thanked me for my time and effort. Ultimately the position was not offered to me, with the reasoning being directly attributed to the specific challenges that the negative colleague presented during my panel. The purpose of a 6-8 stage interview process is to present an unbiased and comprehensive view of a candidate. That shouldn't come down to one interviewers inherently negative input. This invalidates everything Greenhouse says they stand for, in eliminating bias through a structured interview approach. I suspect that all of the remarks were resoundingly positive with the exception of this one unprofessional and unpleasant person. I am, frankly, astounded that this took place and will never consider Greenhouse again as either a client, candidate or advocate of the platform.