Grant Street Group Interview Questions
& Process

My experience interviewing at Grant Street Group was really thorough and well-thought-out. It kicked off with an online video assessment and a quick written task to show my communication and problem-solving abilities. Then, I chatted with HR about the company culture and what to expect next. After that, I did a case study with someone from the PMO team. They gave me a requirements brief and I had to map out a project roadmap, flag risks and assumptions, and come up with questions, all in an hour. This felt super realistic and let me demonstrate my project planning skills in a timed, team-like setting. The last part was a panel interview with C-suite folks and other team members. It was engaging and I got to meet a bunch of people from different departments, which gave me a good sense of the team vibe and how leaders operate. All in all, the process was organized, clear, and really focused on people. It showed me GSG is committed to finding the right fit for both them and me and is willing to spend time getting to know candidates. It also gave me a lot of chances to see if the company was a good place for me, making my decision to join much easier.

The recruiter I talked to was nice, and we talked pretty fast. The company seems to have their act together with how they do things and they reply fast. BUT the hiring process took way too long and they cared way too much about stuff that didn't matter. Before I even got to the HR call, I had to do timed logic and writing tests for 30 minutes each in a lockdown browser. Then the HR screening felt like they were just reading my resume word-for-word instead of actually interviewing me. They did talk about the job and ask some behavioral questions, but mostly they drilled down on old stuff, like why I picked my college major more than 10 years ago. This had nothing to do with the job, especially since the job description says: "Our client solutions analysts come from all sorts of academic, business or technical backgrounds." It all felt weird and probably makes good people not apply because they don't want to jump through so many hoops. My advice to management is to make the interview process shorter. Focus on checking current skills, how people solve problems, and if they fit the company culture instead of too many tests and digging through resumes. You might lose good candidates because the process feels more like a roadblock than a chance.

The interview process was pretty bad. I was prepared and had relevant experience, and I did okay on the tests. My first interview was with HR, and it felt hostile. The interviewer was cold and mechanical, didn't let me talk much, asked questions I'd already answered, and seemed suspicious. They asked for very specific IP details about my current job, which I couldn't give. It felt like they were trying to disqualify me quickly. I almost didn't continue, but heard this is common for them. The next interview was with two managers. It was a bit better, but still not great. They were less hostile but still asked very specific questions, didn't give me the benefit of the doubt, offered no feedback, and didn't build any rapport. My work is complex, and I felt I had to oversimplify it or water it down too much. It felt like they had specific answers in mind and weren't open to anything else. It seemed like they didn't really want to hire anyone and were just going through the motions. I work at a bigger, faster tech company and found the people here less personable than even there. This place might be one of the worst I've interviewed at.

First, they send a coding assessment with a SQL challenge and a coding challenge in your preferred language. The coding challenge was hard, I won't give it away, but I will just say that it would be best to break down the challenge into a bunch of smaller problems to solve and then combine. The next step was a coding challenge with a tech lead, and a more casual interview. The tech lead responded to questions, offered some thoughts and subtle hints. The next phase was 4 back to back interviews with a HR person, two engineers, and then a relational database design challenge with an engineer and a PM. The interviews with the engineers went shorter than anticipated, they didn't have many questions between them. This may have been my weakest of the 4 interviews because I would consider making separate tables for things that may have made more sense to store in a single table. A day later after the 4 interviews, I got a rejection letter.