I had a disappointing experience interviewing with QAD for a Director, Engineering position. Initially, I was asked to schedule the interview via their calendar. However, during the first scheduled slot, the interviewer did not join, and there was no prior communication or follow-up regarding the no-show. On a second attempt, I was asked again to schedule the interview, but this time it was canceled at the last minute without adequate notice. Despite these issues, I later received a generic rejection email stating that they “enjoyed getting to know me” and thanking me for my time, which did not reflect the experience, as the interview process was never started and poorly managed. Overall, the process felt disorganized and lacked respect for the candidate’s time. I would recommend improving coordination, communication, and professionalism in the interview process.

I had a positive discussion with the HR team and the hiring manager. However, my interaction with the India Head was disappointing and came across as unnecessarily dismissive. Having conducted many interviews myself, I believe professional courtesy matters regardless of how a conversation goes. Interviews are short interactions, and sometimes candidates may be nervous, communication may not be perfectly aligned, or discussions may drift and that is part of human interaction. What concerned me more was the way previous leadership exits, including that of the CEO, were discussed and normalized as routine tactical decisions. While maintaining a high performance bar and making difficult organizational decisions is part of leadership, the manner in which these situations are described often talks a volume about the broader culture of an organization and a leader thought-process. Leadership styles driven by arrogance or entitlement(often misunderstood as deciplined) may create immediate tactical impact, but often end up causing greater long-term organizational damage.