Holman Interview Questions
& Process

It was a 3-round interview process. The first round was with the hiring manager, and it was a really collaborative session. They thought I might be overqualified but still passed me to the next round. Round 2 was similar, with two mid-level Scrum Masters who seemed impressed, saying I knew my stuff. I felt a decision should have been made then. The final round was with a VP who seemed unfamiliar with Agile. It was very robotic and like they were reading from a script, with no real conversation. They barely said hello and then gave me feedback that I was unengaged and didn't give clear examples, which felt like false feedback. No offer came after that. I think at the VP level, the interviewer should be more engaging and not just read questions verbatim. A good conversation is key to assessing skills.

They asked me to talk about my ITSM knowledge, the different processes I've been involved with, and what my responsibilities were on projects. I gave specific examples from Incident, Change, and Request processes, talked about my full project lifecycle experience, and how I managed client communications and dealt with technical challenges.

The interview process felt really long and drawn out. After the recruiter reached out, I had to keep asking about the status and what was next. Once an interview was set up, it was an hour long. The two people interviewing me didn't really explain the job duties, but instead wanted to know what I knew about Holman and my past experience. I felt good leaving the interview, thinking it went well, but it felt unfinished because they didn't talk about the role's responsibilities or what they were looking for. I realized later I should've asked, but I was focused on my own questions. Then, I was told it would take a few weeks to make a decision. I waited 3 weeks with no word from the recruiter until I followed up, and then I got rejected because they said they needed someone who better fit their qualifications. It's frustrating because you'd think they'd know if a candidate meets qualifications after the interview, instead of making them wait. Honestly, their interview process seemed really unprepared, and they need to do a better job with preparation and recruiting should be more upfront with candidates. Maybe this shows how their internal processes work.

We talked a lot about behavioral questions to get a feel for the team and how they work together. This helped me understand how people help the team succeed and how they all work together. I learned about how they solve problems, talk to each other, and what's important to them. It was good to see how team members handle tough situations, use everyone's strengths, and communicate well, so I can see how I'd fit in and help out. We also discussed projects the team has worked on, which showed me how big and complicated their work is. Talking about these projects gave me a real sense of what the team has accomplished, what everyone did, and the results of their work. It also helped me see how my skills match what they need and where I can contribute.