Technical Interview: The interview included very specific questions such as “What is our compensation model?” and “Who are our main restaurant partners in this area?” If you don’t know the answer, the interviewer asks you to “think about it,” even though these are internal details a candidate wouldn’t reasonably know without having worked at Glovo. I understand the intention may be to assess how candidates think, but if that’s the goal, the interviewer should provide a structured problem with relevant information and allow time to reflect — especially since there is already a dedicated business-case step in the selection process. For a technical interview, it would be far more meaningful to focus on previous relevant experiences and practical scenarios aligned with the job description. Asking closed, highly specific questions about internal processes does not allow candidates to demonstrate their reasoning or actual skills. The structure of the interview also felt rushed. After a very brief overview of the team, I was told I had 60 seconds to introduce myself. Then, when I began answering a question about working with targets (something the interviewer explicitly asked), I was interrupted so the conversation could move on to more company-specific questions. Overall, the approach did not feel effective in evaluating real competencies. Very disappointing! The interview left a poor impression, not of the interviewer personally, but of the company’s culture. Given the publicly reported legal and regulatory challenges involving Glovo and Delivery Hero — from labour-related rulings to EU competition fines — I realised that this is not the type of company I would want to be associated with. Combined with the interview experience, it made me feel I had probably dodged a bullet.