Boozt interview questions

Overall, my interview experience with Boozt was standard and genuinely enjoyable. The process itself was well-structured, and every person I interacted with was kind, professional, and engaging. Throughout the interviews, I felt encouraged and supported, and I left each conversation feeling positive and hopeful about the possibility of joining the team. While I fully respect Boozt’s final hiring decision, I was disappointed with how the rejection was communicated. I received an email titled “Welcome to Boozt,” which initially read very positively before ending with a rejection. The subject line felt misleading and raised expectations unnecessarily, which was particularly disheartening. As someone actively and seriously searching for a role, clear and considerate communication is incredibly important. I followed up to request feedback and to express my confusion regarding the subject line, but unfortunately did not receive a response. Despite this, my overall impression of the interviewers and the interview process remains positive, and I appreciate the time and effort the team invested throughout the process.

The application process was already quite tedious — not only did I have to submit my CV and a cover letter, but also complete both a time-consuming cognitive test and a behavioral one. At that point I wasn’t sure if I was applying for merchandising or the FBI. More than a week later, I received an on-site interview invitation with just two days’ notice. Not exactly generous prep time, but fine — I accepted and prepared. As it was an on-site interview, I assumed this would be more than a quick HR screening and took time to review potential technical or in-depth questions about my skills and experience.
 On the day, I arrived 10–15 minutes early, only for the interviewer to show up 5–10 minutes late. Not a disaster, but still — when a candidate has cleared their schedule and arrived on time, it’s not a great look to keep them waiting. Perhaps I’m just old-fashioned in thinking punctuality goes both ways.
 The interviewer herself, however, was very pleasant and welcoming. She started with an introduction about the role, then moved into questions. But they were surprisingly vague: why I applied, why Copenhagen, what kind of company culture I was looking for. Nothing technical, nothing specific to the role. All in all, more of a general background chat than a skills-based interview. She said I’d hear back the following week, but by Monday I already had the rejection email. According to their “very careful evaluation” (which apparently took one business day), my background didn’t match strongly enough and the role “would not allow me to perform at my best.” Now, rejection is part of the process, no problem there. But the phrasing was unnecessarily dismissive and disqualifying, especially given that the interview had no real focus on skills or role-specific tasks. If you never ask me how I’d approach the work, how exactly do you know I wouldn’t be able to perform? And finally, if my background was such a poor fit, why select me in the first place? Did anyone actually read my CV and cover letter, or was it more of a lucky dip out of the application pile? Because from my side, it felt less like a careful process and more like a random pick. One final thought: beware of the working setup. It wasn’t mentioned clearly anywhere, but during the interview (and later confirmed by other reviews) it turned out they have no remote or hybrid option anymore. They used to, but now it’s five days a week in the office. In fact, I was told that until February I’d need to work four days a week in Malmö and one in Copenhagen — then five in Copenhagen once the HQ moves. This information wasn’t disclosed up front, and to make matters worse, the job ad on LinkedIn is still tagged as “hybrid,” which is misleading. Forcing everyone into the office full-time in 2025 feels pretty anachronistic, especially after years of proof that productivity and engagement are the same (if not better) with flexible work. At the very least, it should be communicated openly from the start, not tucked away as an afterthought. The funniest part? Among the listed perks, they highlight a “culture of trust.” Trust so deep, apparently, that they need you commuting between two countries five days a week. Imagine if they didn’t trust you.