Planview Interview Questions
& Process

I got reached out by Planview HR for the Sr. Software Engineer I – Automation job. They first said it would be two rounds: 1. Tech 2. Tech + Managerial. Round 1 was technical and went fine. Round 2 was supposed to be managerial but turned into another technical round because the manager couldn't make it. Then, I was told the role was on hold. About a month later, the same HR contacted me again to see if I was still interested and set up the actual managerial round (Round 3). Round 3 was a deep dive into the team, what the job entails, my salary ideas, how long I'd commit, and if I was open to onsite work. It seemed to go well, and they said HR would update me. Later that week, a different HR person unexpectedly called to set up a 4th round. Round 4 had two people, the manager from Round 3 (who was quiet) and a delivery manager who asked some tech questions. It felt short, disjointed, and unclear. After round 4, I heard nothing. I emailed them but got no response. Finally, I asked the first HR and found out they weren't moving forward with my application.

Wanted to share some honest feedback for continuous improvement. Found the process to be way too long, with multiple stages that often repeated the same or very similar questions. This felt redundant rather than like progression, and made it hard to stay engaged and energetic throughout. In the final stage, felt the interviewer made assumptions about my experience without probing further or giving space for clarification. This not only misrepresented my capabilities but also made the interaction feel one-sided. By the end, found myself questioning if the company would be the right fit. A more streamlined process, with clearer differentiation between stages and more open, curious dialogue, might create a better candidate experience.

I had a really good time interviewing for the Manager, Software Engineering job at Planview. It was super organized and clear, and I felt really involved, honestly one of the best hiring experiences I've had. ✅ They kept me in the loop the whole time, no confusion. ✅ The rounds were planned out really well, covering tech, leadership, and culture stuff. ✅ They asked good questions that made me think about problems and leading, not just remembering tech stuff. ✅ They respected my time, scheduling was easy and it was all professional. ✅ I liked the feedback they gave me after, it felt like a real chat. The whole thing was thorough but not draining, they really focused on making sure I'd fit the company vibe and what they expected. Everyone was professional and knew their stuff, and they were welcoming, which gave me a great impression of Planview.

It was a two-stage interview process. The first stage involved a Java code walkthrough with the interviewer. We went over some basic Java classes and I had to identify and fix any errors I found, which included mistakes in syntax, semantics, logic, and object-oriented principles like encapsulation. The second stage was about designing pseudo-code object definitions for the game Tetris. We discussed which objects, along with their attributes and methods, I would create to build the game, focusing on OOP concepts. Both stages were conducted by different senior developers and included a brief behavioral interview segment.