Introduced through a third-party recruiter. There seemed to be evidence of intentional misinformation somewhere between parties to create "interview lag" while other candidates were vetted. Once the phone screen with the hiring manager was scheduled (then rescheduled – more lag), the 30-minute phone interview was polite, professional, and polished, but quite vacuous.

The substance of the role in print seemed to be that of a senior person; however, feedback through the recruiter (who failed to give communication until solicited) was that I was perhaps "too high of a level" for the hiring manager. Based on my tenure and experience in the space, this may be true. However, there was a sense that the hiring manager was uncomfortable with a strong level of ability so close to their own interests and aspirations of vocational progression.

I don't like when people aren't truthful or transparent, and unfortunately, this experience reeks of this. What I can't do is identify the party, so I'm giving Fidelity the benefit of the doubt and giving a neutral opinion. At least there is now a record here for other candidates to be wary of being unduly treated.

Once I advised the recruiter of the phone interview having been conducted by email, they were immediately eager (within 15 minutes) of phoning to know "exactly what you were asked" during the call. As a candidate, do yourself a favor and resist these approaches. They are not in your best interest as a nominee and only serve to help the recruiter find additional competition.

Q: Specific to this interview, there were no "questions" per se. It was more a description of the role, and then my opportunity to provide how my background fit against the mandate.