Glean (CA) Interview Questions
& Process

So for the AI Outcomes Manager role, there were 4 interviews total. First was a recruiter screen, and then 3 more interviews. The last 2 were with peers. I thought the whole process was pretty easy. The most important part seemed to be *****’s round, which felt like the main decision point. In my case, that round was a presentation, but I'm not sure if it's always that way. It seemed to matter the most in the end. What was confusing is that ***** gave me really good feedback during the interview, saying I was exactly what they were looking for, that I passed the presentation, and that my past technical experience with Glean was a big plus. But even with all that, I still got rejected. This difference between the interview feedback and the final decision made it hard to understand. Some parts felt unprofessional too. Before I started my presentation, ***** asked me to hurry through it, which was a bummer considering how much prep it took, and he was eating lunch while I presented. Also, a friend who interviewed for the same job felt that *****’s round was super important too, and in their case, ***** ended the interview early, so my friend didn't get to ask any questions. The other interviewers were great though – thoughtful, engaging, and professional. The whole process was well-organized and easy to navigate. My main advice is to know that *****’s round seemed to be the biggest factor, and that even super positive feedback during the interview didn't guarantee a positive outcome. Oh, and his name rhymes with 'very'.

So the process started with a recruiter chat, then I talked to the hiring manager. After that, we dove into more specific product and sales talks. The final part was a panel interview where I had to do a mock discovery role-play, analyze an ICP and account, and walk through a deal I won. They also left time for questions and feedback, focusing on how structured, clear, and practical my approach was.

So I interviewed at Glean and I wanted to share my experience. I was told by leaders that Glean has a policy against hiring people who have been laid off, even if it wasn't performance-related. I was upfront about why I was laid off, provided context, shared my performance metrics, and even gave my previous manager's contact info to confirm it wasn't performance-based. I went through four rounds of interviews and thought the layoff wouldn't be an issue since I got positive feedback after the fourth round. However, I received an email saying I wouldn't be moving forward with no explanation or feedback. I can only assume they rejected me because of their bias against laid-off individuals, which some leaders even admitted they disagreed with but stated it's 'just how it is'. This internal disagreement signals a values misalignment, which is a major red flag. While rejection stings, I'm better off not wasting my time.

I had a recruiter call that went okay, but their explanation of compensation was really confusing because they offered three different structures, which is odd given my 5 years in enablement and 10+ in tech. Then, I had a virtual meeting with the hiring manager, who was 10 minutes late for our 30-minute chat. I stayed for the 20 minutes we had and we talked briefly. She wanted to meet again. Our second 30-minute meeting with her also started 10 minutes late. During this conversation, she asked a lot of personal questions about my life and family to understand me better as a person. I also met with a potential colleague for 30 minutes, but they mostly talked about themselves. After meeting with the hiring manager again, she mentioned wanting me to meet others. I then spoke with the recruiter about my conversation with the hiring manager and we revisited the compensation structure. I asked if I could meet the hiring manager again since I didn't get to ask many questions or discuss my background and skills. Two days later, the recruiter emailed to say they weren't moving forward. I'm not sure what happened, but I feel like I avoided a bad situation; the company seems disorganized and immature in its hiring. The only positive is the recruiter said nice things about working with me during the process.