The interview process at Fever is unnecessarily long and disjointed. There are four separate steps, but the structure doesn’t make sense and feels more like a filtering exercise than a genuine way to evaluate talent. The assessments don’t reflect real-world skills or the actual work of the role, and candidates aren’t given the flexibility to use basic tools that would help demonstrate their abilities. Scheduling is only convenient for the company, with little regard for the candidate’s time zones or availability. Overall, the process feels rigid and out of touch, which is disappointing considering Fever positions itself as innovative and people-first.

1st phase: A short interview with a friendly junior HR associate to assess cultural fit. 2nd phase: A Mettl timed test covering logic, maths, reading comprehension, and abstract reasoning. The test was split into three timed sections, each with more questions than could realistically be answered in the time given. I prefer to work methodically and get things right — this format rewarded rushing through. No opportunity was given to demonstrate actual event production skills like creativity, problem-solving under pressure, stakeholder coordination, or attention to detail. They should reconsider how much weight is given to timed aptitude tests for creative or coordination-based roles. Great event producers aren’t necessarily the fastest at solving math problems under a stopwatch — they’re the ones who can manage complex projects, think on their feet in real situations, and deliver exceptional experiences. You risk missing out on strong candidates by filtering them out this way. If you’re quick at mental maths under time pressure, you might pass. If you believe event production requires more than that, this process may frustrate you. Their loss.

4 rounds of interviews, including conversations, a cognitive processing test, and a case study. The test was similar to brain games such as Lumosity. All interviewers were very friendly and the overall experience was positive