Tell HN: Frustrating Interview Process at VMware

7 points4k1l2y ago8 comments

I would like to share my experience as a candidate for the position of Solutions Architect at VMware Tanzu.

In early April, I applied for the position and received a response from a recruiter after a week. The recruiter found my CV quite interesting and explained the hiring process, which consisted of three stages: an interview with the hiring manager, a technical interview, and a panel interview.

During the interview with the technical manager, who had a strong technical background, I was given a clear understanding of the role of a Day 2 Operations Solutions Architect for Kubernetes Tanzu. I was also asked about technical problems I had encountered in my career and how I approached solving them. The questions were well-thought-out, and I was able to answer them confidently. The technical manager seemed impressed and gave me the green light for the next stage of the interview process.

In the second stage, I was interviewed by a solutions architect and was asked to write a Terraform module for AWS. We also discussed various topics related to Kubernetes, and my experience was well-received by the interviewer.

After nearly three weeks, I was invited for the panel interview. I received an email requesting that I deliver a presentation to a panel on a "technical topic of your choice," keeping in mind that there would be a non-technical member on the panel. As someone with previous experience working with customers, this was not particularly challenging for me. I delivered the following presentation on Kubernetes admission controller and made sure to provide numerous real-life examples.

Following the presentation, the panel asked me several questions, including:

    How would I explain the importance of policy engines in Kubernetes to a customer?
    Would I recommend Kyverno or Gatekeeper, and why?
    What would be the initial steps to take with customers?
    How could I explain the significance of certain technologies from a business perspective?

They also asked some other questions related to pre-sales, which confused me about the scope of the role. To clarify, I inquired about whether the role focused solely on after-sales day 2 operations or if it also involved sales responsibilities.

Two days later, the recruiter contacted me and informed me that the panel had decided to pursue other options for the position at that time. They offered me the opportunity to have a feedback meeting with someone from the panel, which I gladly accepted. Today, I had a Zoom meeting with one of the panel interviewers.

During the meeting, I explained what a Solutions Architect role entails and shared what I had learned about the role from the hiring manager. I also addressed my confusion regarding the sales-related questions. The interviewer acknowledged that I had chosen a good topic and presented it pretty well. However, the panel was dissatisfied with my question about the role's scope, as how i am still unaware of the scope of the role. He admins it was probably a misunderstanding, but "the decision was taken and can't be reversed". They also felt that my explanation regarding the business perspective was not sufficiently detailed. Interestingly, I was the only candidate who reached the panel interview stage.

I was a bit frustrated because I believe these reasons are not sufficient for declining a candidate who is well-suited for the position. Also i think the hiring manager and the team weren't really involved by the decision. The recruiter had actually informed me a week prior that the hiring manager was more than happy with my experience and would be inclined to hire me.

What do you think about it?

About me, i am a cloud engineer and solutions architect with solid networking and Kuberenetes background with around 7 years of experience.

8 comments

chiefalchemist2y ago

I have a heuristic that puts such "adventures" in perspective:

How you hire is whom you hire.

You'd think more outfits would be more methodical and coordinated about hiring, but we all have head scratcher encounters and (too often) even horror stories. Or you get hired and look back and see a red flag fest that was the interview and onboarding process.

What you experienced is (likely) what that organization is. Yes, it sounds like you wanted the role and were a great fit. But that role exists within a context, a context that rubs you all the wrong ways.

Unfortunately, just move on. There's better waiting for you somewhere.

lisasays2y ago

First, let's have more follow-ups like these that name the actual company, please (even though there's no abuse or massive incompetence alleged in this particular case). The more genuine transparency we have about these companies, the better.

As to your concern - well it seems to be not that they did anything horribly misleading or abusive to you - but simply that they passed on you, right?

The thing is ... at the end of the day, companies pass on qualified or nearly qualified candidates all the time -- sometimes for perfectly good reasons, sometimes for perfectly bad reasons. And a lot of times because they just don't know.

A lot times also they'll just (perhaps narcissistically) pass, and pass and pass on what may have been perfectly decent candidates ... until one day they go, "Oh shit, this starting to drag on, we need to fill this role" and then they just take the 4th or 5th person who comes along and seems to vaguely meet the bar. Or whom one of the panel just has a certain hunch about (or a lack of negative hunches).

And then of course promptly forget about the whole time-wasting experience for all involved, and repeat it again in the next hiring cycle. All the while complaining about how difficult it is to hire.

That's just what these companies do, and there's not a lot anyone can do about it. Especially not the candidates, who at best can just take their lumps, and factor this all into the cost of job switching.

In this case you can again be thankful that nothing really abusive seems to happened, other than ... companies doing what they're gonna do

Which I grant can be quite frustrating to all concerned, especially the way it keeps happening ... at scale, again and again.

kjs32y ago

I was a bit frustrated because I believe these reasons are not sufficient for declining a candidate who is well-suited for the position.

They aren't obligated to give you the job and the decision makers did think there were sufficient reasons to pass on you. Unless you think there's some protected class bias, chalk it up to "live and learn". As a hiring manager I've certainly walked out of many, many interviews and said "candidate is technically qualified, but they aren't a fit" for many legitimate reasons.

gcheong2y ago

Take everything they tell you with a grain of salt, especially things like "the decision was made and cannot be reversed". It's possible that in the course of interviewing you they realized that they needed a person with a different set of skills than what they originally thought they needed and so decided to change course with that position. Could be any number of reasons though really.

jstx12y ago

> I also addressed my confusion regarding the sales-related questions.

This is on you for not realising that "solutions" = "sales" most of the time. My reaction is that, yes, of course they'll ask you sales questions, it's a sales position.

Their process is fine; it's just that your expectations of the job and the actual job weren't aligned and you found out a bit too late.

4k1lOP2y ago

I believe the hiring manager and the panel had different understanding of the role; each from this perspective.

prirun2y ago

> Interestingly, I was the only candidate who reached the panel interview stage.

Maybe they just closed the open position w/o hiring anyone?

kleer0012y ago

I've had a similarly strange interview. Didn't take but one day, and I got a free flight and saw some friends. But yea, sometimes communication breaks down within and between departments.

No biggie. You probably dodged a bullet.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse