The pro is that I was invited for an interview soon after I applied for a Data Manager role and this senior IC role. The con is its obvious why this company has low ratings and is losing talent -- there's a lack of common sense and general awareness, not to mention skill. I said my preference was the Data Manager role, so I did a leadership interview for that, but I received conflicting information on the content -- first that it was a technical screen and then that it was a leadership interview. The interviewer was Italian, my resume said I speak advanced Italian. I pronounced his name correctly and he said most people don't. Italian is not a hard language. Yellow flag. Then he said they manage large teams. And then he said the role would manage a team of 7, lol. That is not large, especially within tech. Another yellow flag and indications that they take themselves too seriously, live in an alt-reality bubble, and over generalize. I didn't move forward for that role and then the recruiter wasn't going to consider me for the senior IC role because the pay range I had provided for the data manager role was higher -- what!? I had to explain that 2 different roles, with different levels of seniority at that, means 2 different pay ranges. Reg flag. I wrote a brief, but detailed email explaining this, and also added that I am very motivated to work outside the US. Another red flag because they clearly don't pay attention to world news. I make it to the prod data scientist interview loop. The video quality on their end was blurry and the sound quality was not good. There were 2 people in the interview and the manager says "it's not the norm" to go from people manager to senior IC and asks me to explain. She was European, probably eastern European. To be a data scientist and use a small not representative sample size to determine the norm is wild and makes me question the quality of their methodologies and data in other areas. Deep red flag. I'm ex-FAANG and worked at other large global companies and entities and none of those places have ever asked that question or would consider Glovo to be the place that determines the "norm" for others. Such a joke. I was asked higher level questions and gave higher level answers. I also have to be mindful of the level of detail because of confidentiality agreements. At the end I asked a question I usually ask these days: is there anything I can elaborate on or further clarify about my skills and experiences? They said no. Then the feedback from the recruiter via email was that the conversation was high level and they wanted more detail. Based on other interviewees experiences, this seems to be the company's go-to response to cover up their poor interviewing skills and low competency. Red flag. When dealing with confidentiality agreements one has to be careful and as a global company they should know this, but they seem to be careless as they try to get people to violate those agreements. Deep red flag. This company is unknown in the US and I'm glad to see that the company is working hard to keep it that way. I heard about this company from a friend in the US only looking to work abroad. I thought Glovo was a company in a high growth phase so saw this as an opportunity to bring my skill and experience, while also getting a work visa for Europe for universal healthcare and to help me stay their longterm. It's so weird how much they rely on assumptions and generalizations, especially with so few data points; more like a sales company and less of a data-driven one.