A 4/5-step process which involves - a generic questioning step: everything from relevant to completely irrelevant questions on the field of Computer Science, networks, protocols and anything else you can think of. - Pair programming step, and a - more generic system design. The main issue with the process was the lack of transparency with regards to the actual opening. It often felt there was no 'real' opening but the company kept ongoing processes just for optics. No one was able to tell you which team you would be working for, and at which level. This is (supposedly) decided after you complete the entire process (!). The interviewers although generally polite, were themselves not comfortable with some parts of the process as they (also) felt some/most of the questions were more like a quiz (major interview anti-pattern) and were completely unrelated to the job. The general feeling of the process is one that the interviewer is trying to make you 'fail' rather than help you succeed. (unsurprisingly, since this is mainly a greek company, and that's a bit closer to the local culture of memorising vs understanding) In fact after 5 hours of interviews in total, I felt several key architectural issues were not discussed at all which is quite telling about the usefulness of the process.

A total of 4 sessions: 1st: Call with HR rep (~45 minutes) 2nd: Live coding session with a senior engineer (90 minutes) 3rd: Technical Q&A session with engineering/dev team (90 minutes) 4th: Solution design session with head of engineering (90 minutes) Not being interviewed for a specific position, they informed me that the position will be determined after the completion of the interviews, to know where you are a good fit.