The recruitment process started in a fairly standard and structured way but became increasingly unclear and inconsistent as it progressed. The first call was with HR and focused primarily on English communication skills. The second step involved a test, which took close to an hour to complete. The third call was presented as a discussion about availability and potential days off, along with the mention of an additional test. However, the fourth call shifted direction entirely, focusing on denying the possibility of certain days off and explaining that these are granted based on management preferences and seniority within the company. Throughout multiple calls, one of the main points repeatedly emphasized was whether I would need time off over the next three months. I had only requested a total of four days, and even those could have been easily managed without actually taking time off. Despite this, during the final discussions, HR indicated that it is unlikely any time off could be accommodated, as the manager handles such requests in a specific way. When I acknowledged this and mentioned that I understood I might not have holidays or free days during the first year but would expect some the following year, I was told that none could be guaranteed, as the manager has preference, without any further clarification. A major concern throughout the process was the lack of transparency around time-off policies. It was stated that days off are granted preferentially based on tenure, but no clear criteria or explanation of fairness was provided. When I raised realistic scenarios—such as consistently working during important personal dates or public holidays—these concerns were not addressed constructively and were instead treated as problematic. Additionally, when I brought up concerns regarding my free time, they were dismissed. The tone of the conversation shifted noticeably, and HR began questioning my approach with customers, asking whether I would be as direct with them. It was implied that I seemed frustrated about the time-off situation and that they needed to ensure I was a good fit for the role. This came across as a way to deflect from the original concern and effectively shut down the discussion, rather than address a legitimate question about work-life balance. Another issue was the way one of the calls was conducted. I was contacted without prior scheduling, and the discussion was not clearly framed as an evaluation step. Despite this, I later received feedback stating that I “did not pass the interview,” which does not accurately reflect how that interaction was presented. The tone during that conversation was, at times, difficult to follow—repetitive, somewhat unstructured, and increasingly defensive when I tried to clarify certain points. Some questions appeared unrelated to the actual responsibilities of the role, including hypothetical scenarios that added to the confusion. The call itself ended abruptly, without a clear conclusion or summary of next steps. Overall, while the process began on a positive and structured note, it later revealed significant gaps in communication, transparency, and consistency. It also created the impression that direct and reasonable questions—particularly those related to work-life balance—were not received openly, ultimately affecting both the clarity and professionalism of the overall experience.