If you are reading this you are probably familiar with the unique environment at Bridgewater. For those that aren't, the company has an embedded corporate philosophy of intense introspection that strives for continuous improvement by constantly asking "is that true". I am sharing my experience because it is completely incongruous with what one expects after researching in preparation for an interview. I reluctantly replied to a posting for the position. My trepidation was based on the fact that this role has be open several times over the last 3 years. I've had conversations with an individual in the recruitment process regarding the difficulty of incorporating established best practices within the culture and how that has led to a revolving door for this role. In my initial discussion with the individual I understood to be the hiring manager we made a good connection and she was pretty forthright in discussing the problems experienced with the program. At the conclusion the manager mentioned that there were actually 3 positions open, the overall head of the program, a business continuity lead and a disaster recovery lead and asked if I would be interested in either of the other 2. It is important to note that neither of the other two were posted anywhere at the time. I concurred that I would be willing to evaluate other positions but I couldn't commit without a better idea of the details. A few days later HR sent me the job description, which looked interesting enough to proceed. A series of 4 interviews was scheduled, with a standard orientation segment delivered through video snippets to kick things off. One of the main stories conveyed is an individual who was meek and timid when he arrived and had evolved into being very assertive. This conversion was converted in very colorful language. The first interviewer had stated intention of evaluating me as a cultural fit. In his explanation of the company he told me that much of a new hires initial time is spent in indoctrination, which made sense in the context of the story told in one of the snippets. When he asked me my concerns regarding the company I mentioned the issues the environment had created for the last few people who held this position. He said "what problems". Given the culture was I supposed to share the details the hiring manager shared with me? Could I be expected to apply the cultural expectation in my initial interaction with the company. If so, why would it be necessary to go through indoctrination as a new hire? This dilemma resulted in an awkward exchange. The next segment was even more frustrating. It was a panel of the 3 people currently in these roles, one of which was the apparently newly promoted Head of Business Continuity. He was now the hiring manager and had no part in selecting me for this interview. This was a tough environment and while I felt that the 2 subordinates were truly evaluating my fitness for the role but the defacto hiring manager was disinterested at best. It was after this session that the manager I initially spoke with came in a told me that there was a feeling that this simply wouldn't work and that the other sessions had been cancelled. Because of internal security, I then had to wait 40 minutes for someone to come and walk me out. The bottom line: a company that makes "is it true" so much an issue should at least be straightforward in discussing internal changes when they could impact candidates. Wouldn't a screening discussion with the new appointee make sense for all involved? Also, in regard to "is it true", the current posting is still for the Head of Business Continuity, a job that has been filled. And if it takes weeks of indoctrination to come up to speed on the culture, what is the point of evaluating candidates for cultural fit in the initial discussion. Tread carefully.