It goes from recruiter > hiring manager/AE > Presentation/demo > VP/Dir > VP/Dir. The interview process felt loosely structured and intentionally ambiguous which made it difficult to know what success looked like at each stage. Rather than following a consistent rubric or framework each step seemed to vary in expectations, format, and feedback quality. Early stages focused on broad questions about experience and approach, but lacked clarity on how those answers were being evaluated. The later rounds, particularly the demo, appeared to test for specific, unspoken preferences (presentation style, how soon you engaged certain personas, how much you “clicked around”, and if you tried to wow the them with a feature) rather than measurable sales competencies. Feedback was inconsistent and subjective, often framed as “you have potential, but” or “you put in a lot of work although.” This implied that decisions were more about internal fit or readiness than about actual performance in the exercises. Overall, the process came across as open ended by design with interviewers leaving a lot of room for interpretation. It created uncertainty and an uneven playing field. You were asked to show creativity and ownership, but given little guidance on what “great” looked like.

Initially, an interview is completed with the hiring manager and recruiter. After the initial interview, there is a product case study to be completed. Afterwards, there is an interview conducted with the two founders.