Saw the Glassdoor posting for the Regional Vice President [RVP] role in Las Vegas, NV. Applied online and received confirmation of receipt of application via email. All email communication was timely, organized, and professional. Round 1 – Phone Screening Invited to a brief introductory phone call. Scheduled through a provided calendar link. Interview lasted about 15–20 minutes. Questions were surface-level, more like a checklist, designed to confirm experience and interest. Round 2 – Panel Interview (Zoom) A few days later, I was invited to a second-round panel interview via Zoom. This round was more comprehensive, with multiple panelists present. The format was structured but conversational, covering leadership style, past experience, and values alignment. The interview was recorded. During this round, new information about the scope of the position was introduced. I was partially caught off guard, but genuinely excited about the potential change. Expectations vs. Experience I was told the process could include a 3rd round with a performance task. I expected to complete this task to demonstrate ability beyond conversation. At an executive level, this is the step where you can truly compare apples to apples and see which candidates can definitively walk the walk beyond the talk — how they think, make decisions, and execute strategy in real time. Instead, the process ended after Round 2. I later received an email stating they had decided to move forward with another candidate. The rejection email specifically cited: “timing, team dynamics, and the way the role is evolving.” Feedback & Reflection While professional, the decision felt premature — assumptions appeared to be made about my availability and the efficacy of my leadership style (servant leader: serving those who serve you in order to maximize the efficacy of your team) rather than allowing me to demonstrate the brilliance and high value applicability in practice. Based on their feedback, it appears they assumed such a style wouldn’t be a fit. Because of that miscalculation, their organization may never be in a position to truly reap the benefits of having a servant leader who brings balance between an ENTJ-A and INFJ-A profile. Overall Impression Professional communication throughout. Clear timelines were stated (two weeks of vetting, decision by mid-September). They did extend an invitation to stay in touch. However, the process did not fully test candidates at the same level, and decision-making appeared to rely on assumptions rather than performance evidence. I would encourage future applicants to be aware that the process may shift, and the opportunity to demonstrate ability through a performance task is not guaranteed. Rating (Interview Process): 3/5 (Professional and organized, but lacked a fair, apples-to-apples opportunity to compete at the performance task stage based on narrow view of leadership style.)