First stage with talent: typical interview structure, however didn't feel very positive and that the interviewer was trying to understand why I'd apply with some trepidation in lines of questioning. During the interview I raised Lego's DEI policy and how that speaks to their mandated 3 day in office policy, as they don't appear to align. Made a suggestion of reduced days in due to medical reasons as well as caring responsibilities (companies should have flexible working policies that allow you to apply for certain working patterns and conditions) and that was the main question to come back on, as well as suitability for the level of seniority. Received notification that 3 days in is non-negotiable and that I would potentially be too senior for the position. The latter I trust is the right decision, however the former is deeply problematic and discriminatory. I share my response by email: 'It still begs the question. How well is Lego adhering to its DEI policy when its mandated in-office policy is the antithesis to that? In my case, it plays to systemic misogyny as well as ableism and corporate racism - there's also the environmental impact of in-office mandating. For what presents as a progressive, innovative, family-centric corporation, who understands the value and sanctity of family time/play/togetherness, I'm incredibly disillusioned. This undoubtedly has an impact on talent acquisition and retention and invites a workforce that values presence and clocking in over ability and work ethic - quite authoritarian. Unfortunately, if a director position came around, I cannot undo my heart condition nor perimenopause nor neurodivergence, and I cannot forgo the little time I already have to spend time with my [child] and carry out other important labour that I'm duty bound to - women do 60% more unpaid labour than men on average in the HH, however I'm also a lone parent, so the labour is significantly more pronounced - black women are most likely to be lone parents in the UK, so what's the wider impact here outside of my experience? If we removed the fact that I would likely be over experienced for the role, so it wouldn't quite be an appropriate match at this point - from an ethics standpoint would the rejection be classic discrimination due to my lived experience? Please can you ensure my concerns are shared internally with your SLT - hopefully others will also be confident in sharing their feedback forthrightly. And, with time, the business will recognise how deeply problematic this strategy is and is in contrast to the way the world sees and experiences Lego, as well as what a productive, engaged and healthy team of people looks like in 2025.' So, I say to anyone experiencing this during the interview process or as a member of the Lego team, take the time to let others know your real experience and be an agent of change in the corporate world.

Transparent, efficient, balanced process with feedback offered at every stage. 3 rounds: first 45mins with internal talent partner focussing on cultural fit; second 60mins with hiring manager and another senior member of team focussing on background, skills and experience; 3rd 90mins case study round with hiring manager, a different senior member of team and member of the partnered leadership team focussing on approach and competencies. All interviews virtual over Teams. Each round was targeted at a week long across all candidates with targeted timings for the whole process laid out at the outset, and broadly kept to. Given around a week to prep for case study. Times and dates for interviews were set around a week advance with no alternative options offered unless requested. While this made fitting them in around my current full-time job more challenging I personally preferred this as I felt it really sped up the process. At least a third of each round left for candidate to ask interviewers questions. Only recommendation would be to make it clear sharing case study 24hours in advance was to avoid tech issues on the day of final interview, rather than as pre-read.