I applied online.

Engineering Lead — London | March 2026

Process:

• Recruiter screen
• Engineering Lead interview (stage 2)

The recruiter was responsive and well-prepared. Stage 2 was a conversation with the hiring Engineering Lead covering my background, leadership experience, team management approach, handling underperformers, and motivations for joining Wise. All reasonable and relevant questions for the role.

I came prepared, gave structured answers grounded in real examples from leading engineering teams across regulated financial services — Open Banking, payments modernisation, cloud-native migration. The conversation felt engaged and positive. I was told feedback would be passed to the recruiter and I'd hear about next steps.

I didn't progress. No feedback was given. This was only stage 2 — I hadn't even reached the technical rounds. Being screened out at this point with no explanation of what fell short is genuinely difficult to process.

A brief, honest summary of where the bar wasn't met would have been far more valuable than silence — not just for closure, but to know what to improve. Wise presents itself as a transparent, mission-driven company. That value should extend to how candidates are treated in the process, not just customers.

The role and team seemed genuinely interesting. I'd still consider Wise in future — but the feedback gap is a real blind spot worth addressing.

Leadership Style

How do you handle a weak performer?