Upgrade Interview Questions
& Process

it included a few calls: first a recruiter call, then a call with the hiring manager, followed by a call with the VP of Product, and then the CTO call. Lastly, a marketing director call too. The CTO call was definitely the toughest, he really digs deep, while the other calls were more like a vibe check, mostly about behavior and your experience.

My initial conversation with the hiring manager was good; we went over the role, what they expected, and my past projects in detail. The manager was professional and thorough. However, after moving me to the next stage, the recruiter told me the company doesn't sponsor H1B visas. This information should have been shared right at the start, not after interviews. It was frustrating to spend time and effort preparing only to be disqualified for something that should have been caught in the first recruiter screen. This lack of early communication wasted my time and the hiring manager's. Recruiters need to confirm basic requirements like work authorization before progressing candidates.

The entire interview process was completed within a week. It began with an initial call with HR, followed by an interview with a senior team member. Next was a take-home technical assessment, and then a technical interview. After my final technical interview, HR informed me they'd send an official offer letter within a week. However, two weeks passed without receiving the offer, and the reason given was a change in plans and the position no longer being available. They rushed the process only to say the job is gone. Bad company planning, totally disrespectful of my time.

I was contacted by a recruiter to set up an interview. The interview process included 3 rounds, all of which were casual discussions focused on system design. I felt I performed well, offering multiple solutions. I think I addressed most of the questions, although I may not have explicitly stated when I didn't know something. Despite this, I was rejected for two reasons given by HR. Firstly, one interviewer felt I didn't show enough enthusiasm or desire to join, suggesting I should have conveyed more excitement about their technical challenges. I found this feedback strange because I did ask about their projects and challenges, and we discussed it for a few minutes. This interviewer's assessment seems inaccurate. Secondly, when asked about my reasons for switching jobs, I explained it was due to practical reasons like RTO policies not suiting me, despite having a good team. I also contrasted my previous experience in slow-paced traditional banks with the fast-paced, adaptive nature of newer FinTech companies, which I enjoy. I questioned how one can quantify 'attitude' and noted that feigning excitement is possible but doesn't guarantee performance. This interviewer's interpretation of my willingness to join felt unprofessional. Secondly, they stated I lacked sufficient knowledge about transactions. I'm unsure about the benchmark for 'enough' knowledge. I mentioned that `@Transactional` annotation is a code-level solution, and in distributed systems, MQ could ensure once-only message delivery, or Redis cache locks for better performance. I even discussed `@Transactional`'s use of cglib for code regeneration and wrapping commit/rollback logic. I felt their feedback was akin to saying someone knows Java but not the implications of `Serializable`. Ironically, some techniques I mentioned seemed new to them. Overall, I'm very disappointed, especially hearing positive feedback from HR followed by a rejection.