EGYM Interview Questions
& Process

The interview process was pretty organised and the people I met were professional and engaging. But, the role advertised and the role discussed in the final interview were completely different. The original job description focused on brand strategy, creative leadership, and building a brand engine. This was consistent throughout the process, until the final interview. Then it abruptly shifted to internal team leadership challenges and people management issues, with little connection to the brand strategy and creative scope initially described. EGYM has since reposted the role with a substantially changed job description. While every company has the right to hire the profile they need, the issue here is advertising one role, running a full multi-round process, and then revealing at the very last interview that they actually needed something else entirely. This is a poor use of candidates' time and reflects a lack of internal clarity that should be resolved before opening a search, not during it.

They interviewed me for a new role documenting their digital products like the Member App, Trainer App, and Business Suite, even though I initially applied for a role documenting machine software. The HR and technical interviews seemed to go well. I talked about my current role, covering docs-as-code, information architecture and documentation frameworks like Diataxis and custom ones, how I prioritize tasks, and integrating LLMs for pull request reviews. What I didn't like was that there was no learning experience, and I received no feedback after being rejected. There was also some confusion during the technical interview where my country of origin was repeatedly misstated, despite being clear on my CV. The rejection was surprising because I discussed my experience and had researched their docs to understand the reasons behind issues I saw. For example, there were no links to API docs, no current documentation for the Member and Trainer apps, which is problematic for the sales team and new users. Other issues I noticed, though they said work is ongoing to improve their docs platform, included blurry images, inability to browse docs on mobile (requiring a page refresh to return to a previous page), typos, and ambiguous API paths. I've addressed most of these in my current startup role where I lead documentation. I thought my recent work was evident when I was invited for an interview. Given these doc issues and the main role, I felt there was room for growth. When I mentioned API doc issues like missing descriptions and asked about contributing, they mentioned it's an opportunity for growth because they don't manage that part yet but hope writers will in the future. I saw a chance to apply my skills and grow my career. The rejection was a shock, especially after a good technical interview. It's confusing why they'd discuss current team issues and potential challenges to get a candidate excited, only to reject them without feedback, especially after months of interviews. My suggestions are to provide feedback after multiple interview rounds and to actually review CVs and recent work before inviting candidates for technical interviews. It's clear they didn't look at my work, assuming I was just another applicant looking for a paycheck, rather than someone who wants to build. The lesson learned is to assume interviewers might not be fully prepared and to complete your thoughts when highlighting issues, even if they say work is ongoing.

The interview process started off really well, like the first two rounds were great. The interviewers asked good technical and behavioral questions, and it felt like a productive chat. But, the third round was a bummer. They told me in the invite email there'd be a live coding challenge, and to set up my environment for TypeScript. So I did, but then in the interview, the coding task was in Java. They did mention Java in the job description, but expecting TypeScript beforehand was confusing and threw me off. Also, the vibe in the technical interview was a bit off. There were three people, but one barely spoke after introducing himself, making it feel awkward and not very collaborative. They also asked about tech not in the job description, which made it hard to know what they were really looking for. So, while the beginning was good, the technical interview felt disorganized and didn't match what they'd told me. It wasn't the best experience I was hoping for.

The EGYM interview process was really smooth, well-organized, and professional. It kicked off with a friendly HR chat that was informative. I heard back in about two days and got invited to a technical interview. After that, communication stayed clear, and I waited about a week for the next update. The last part was an in-person visit with chats about company culture and more technical stuff. The whole thing felt really put together, respectful, and fast. I had a great experience overall. Everyone was friendly, helpful, and seemed genuinely interested. EGYM gets a thumbs up from me—their interview process shows they're a driven and organized company.