Affinity Global

The interview was scheduled for 3:00 p.m. and was an on-site first-round interview. However, the interviewer arrived and started the interview around 3:30 p.m., which was a 30-minute delay and, in my view, felt unprofessional. The interviewer asked about my previous experience, projects, technologies, and specific modules I had worked on. While I was answering, I noticed that he was frequently looking at his phone. He also repeatedly responded with comments such as, "That's fine, whatever you have said is fine." Later, I received feedback that my answers were too shallow. Throughout the interview, I had proactively asked whether he wanted me to take a deeper dive into specific areas, but the response was generally, "Yeah, that's fine." This made it difficult for me to understand the expected level of detail. Overall, I felt that there was no clear or structured approach to evaluating the candidate. The interview seemed to rely significantly on the interviewer's subjective judgment or gut feeling. In my opinion, a more structured evaluation process with clear expectations would make the interview experience more consistent and fair for candidates.

Fine it was but still needs improvement at certain levels as questions asked were not that relevant to the job role they were hiring for . Plus package should be more for certain roles.

Interview Experience The interview felt misaligned within the first few minutes, with a clear indication that my profile may not be considered a fit. Despite this, the conversation continued for ~30 minutes without a meaningful attempt to evaluate my experience. Only a few questions were asked, while most of the time was spent on the interviewer sharing personal views on hiring, compensation, and career paths. Even after alignment on potential mismatch, the discussion continued in a way that felt more like a one-sided narrative than an interview. Key Observations * The interaction felt pre-judged rather than exploratory * Strong and repeated assumptions were made around compensation expectations and candidate intent (“driven by money” and engaging in offer negotiations) without context. * Comments were made indicating that such expectations may lead to candidates being filtered out without response, which felt more cautionary than evaluative * My experience was described as being “locked” into a broad role (“golden handcuffs”), despite it being a result of cross-functional ownership * Analogies such as comparing role fit to shaadi.com-style matching were used, which felt informal and not relevant to a professional evaluation setting. Interview Style * Highly opinion-driven and directive * Frequent interruptions and counterpoints * Limited opportunity to fully respond * A significant portion of time spent discussing the interviewer’s own experience, team structure, and responsibilities As someone working in HR, I found the approach concerning. Interviews should be: * structured * two-sided * and focused on understanding candidate context Continuing a conversation despite early misalignment, without adapting the approach, felt inefficient and at times discouraging. Final thoughts This experience highlighted the importance of ensuring that interviews remain objective, structured, and two-sided. A more balanced approach would significantly improve the candidate experience

I found it concerning that there were repeated questions around the credibility of my current organization without any prior verification. What stood out even more was that a significant part of the discussion involved real-time searching about my company—and even your own organization’s public ratings—during the interview itself. To be candid, this came across as a lack of preparation and seriousness for the conversation. As someone who operates in strategic HR roles, I strongly believe that interviews should be built on preparation, context, and mutual respect—especially when candidates are investing meaningful time, including completing assessments. Experiences like this don’t just impact candidate perception; they also reflect on the rigor and alignment of the broader team. This interaction has raised concerns for me. I hope this feedback is taken constructively to strengthen the overall interview experience.

I had just 2 rounds 1.First round was of HR - which was just introduction and understanding background etc 2.Second round was with Head of Product - it was more into architecture building with respective to Affinity and questions around that