Lucid Software Interview Questions
& Process

The interview process was friendly and thorough, using the STAR Method. It was quite an involved process. It started with a phone interview, followed by a hiring manager interview, then a panel interview, and finally a VP interview. The whole thing took about a month. The VP interview is more formal, and you're not considered to be in the running until you get past that stage.

The interview process for the implementation consultant technical role involved 6 rounds and speaking with over 9 people, where the same questions were asked repeatedly. Even though the job description indicated that individuals with technical support experience could apply, the director, acting as the hiring manager, seemed unable to recognize transferable skills from technical support to implementation. A mock demo assignment was given, which included incorrect instructions for setting up a developer account. During the team walkthrough of the demo, even they appeared confused about what was correct. It felt like a complete waste of time to be informed after SIX ROUNDS AND TEN PEOPLE that my experience was not sufficient. The recruiter, who stated 'I am your inside girl,' was unresponsive when I followed up regarding a position of interest. Their entire interview process is a joke.

The interview process felt unusually long for an individual contributor role. I applied in mid-February and had my first recruiter conversation in mid-March—delayed because the original recruiter missed our scheduled meeting (I later found out they left the company). After following up multiple times, I finally received a rescheduling link two weeks later. I completed five out of six interview stages, including a take-home SQL assessment, a cultural fit discussion, a business case review, and a 30-minute presentation on a past project. After the fifth round, I was informed that I was "overqualified" and had more experience than the team was looking for. It was unclear why this determination came so late, after nearly two months and multiple rounds of interviews, given that my experience was clearly outlined on my resume and salary expectations were aligned early in the process.

My experience interviewing with Lucid has severely damaged my respect for them. I used to think they were a top tech company in Utah, a real Silicon Slopes success story. However, each interview revealed a disorganized team of incompetent individuals. This aligns with what I've heard from former employees about their lack of improvement. The recruiters are incredibly dense. One suggested that for a UX position, they only need someone who 'knows how to use Figma.' When asked about the team the designer would join – a standard question to understand the product area – the answer was simply, 'This position will be on the UX team.' It's impossible to have a productive conversation when faced with such nonsensical responses. It was evident the recruiter knew nothing about UX based on their limited questions. Punctuality is also an issue; they've been late to every interview I've attended. While I could share more about the baffling things I've witnessed from this company, I'll omit them for anonymity. The main point is that Lucid isn't the prestigious place many assume it to be. The staff are arrogant and unjustified in their conceit. It might serve as a place to earn money with minimal effort and add a recognizable name to your resume, but for genuine growth as a designer or substantial product knowledge, you'd need to seek development opportunities elsewhere. Lucid is not the place for that. Plus, their product is essentially a weaker imitation of Figjam and Miro.