1) The first meeting is with HR for a screening interview. 2) You then have an introductory meeting with panel 3) They give you an assessment to complete 4) You present the Powerpoint assessment to the panel. Having gone through the process, this was my experience: I recently interviewed for a Solutions Architect role at TFG Infotec. The feedback on my technical presentation was very positive—the panel acknowledged the deep research I had done and that I covered all key areas in great detail, going beyond what other candidates had presented. However, I was ultimately failed for a tiny mistake—one that was not even part of the stated assessment criteria. From what I was told, it seems that the decision was based on the fear-mongering of the Bash CTO, rather than an objective evaluation of what was actually assessed. Instead of focusing on the documented requirements, they chose to fail me based on an unstated use case that was never mentioned in the assessment. What makes this even more concerning is that the CTO was never part of the conversation with me, nor was he/she part of the interview process, but the panel just easily "misrepresents" the CTO's behaviour to their benefit to fail candidates. This raises important questions: - Does this mean that people should walk on eggshells when he/she is around? - Does this mean that no one is allowed to make mistakes in his/her presence? - If this behavior is truly expected, what kind of work environment is this? And why is his/her behaviour suddenly part of an assessment? - Does the CTO even know that his/her name is being used as an excuse to fail people? - Is the CTO actually as harsh as the panel claims, or is this just a convenient way to eliminate candidates in the interview process? I genuinely hope the CTO takes note of this review and realizes that his own staff is misusing his name to paint a picture of a toxic work environment at Bash and TFG. If hiring decisions are being made based on fear rather than merit.