I applied online and interviewed with Veeam Software in February 2026. The technical interview was significantly misaligned with the expectations of a senior backend engineering role. There was no discussion of system design, distributed architectures, service communication, scalability, reliability patterns (idempotency, outbox), or domain-driven design. None of the areas typically associated with building and operating production-grade systems were explored. Instead, the interview focused almost entirely on narrow language edge cases and theoretical behavior. Questions included predicting console output from multiple concurrent threads and detailed method resolution scenarios involving override vs new. These questions test precise knowledge of language mechanics, but they do not meaningfully evaluate architectural thinking, system design ability, or real-world engineering trade-offs. When I asked how these questions relate to the responsibilities of the role, I was told this knowledge is “fundamental.” However, there was no opportunity to demonstrate practical backend experience, production problem-solving, or architectural decision-making. The interview was conducted by: Team Leader at Veeam Software (doesn't talk), Project Lead at Veeam Software (talks), Experienced Developer (doesn't talk). Throughout the session, the interaction felt rigid and impersonal. The interviewers maintained a very serious and closed-off demeanor, with minimal engagement or conversational exchange. The atmosphere did not feel collaborative or exploratory; rather, it felt like a checklist-driven evaluation. It also felt as though the outcome may have been predetermined, as there was little curiosity about my background, past projects, or architectural experience. The discussion did not evolve based on my answers, and there was limited dialogue beyond moving to the next predefined question. The process appeared optimized for testing theoretical language precision rather than evaluating senior-level engineering judgment. For a role that likely involves designing and maintaining complex backup and distributed systems, the evaluation framework did not reflect those realities. Overall, the experience felt disconnected from the advertised scope and seniority of the position.

At first there is an initial interview with a recruiter covering common questions: your background, a short description of the position and the company itself. Then I was given a choice what the next stage should be: an online test or a home assignment - developing an application. I chose the first one because it requires less time and actually reveals more about the company than it's displayed during any initial interviews. The test didn't seem difficult: some theoretical questions about C#, SQL queries and WPF cases. However, the last part was quite a surprise to me: I was said that the company had several projects and not all of them were related to WPF. I replied that I indeed had some experience with this technology but quite a long time ago (around 8 years ago) and that's why I'd like to go for another project. Nevertheless, they sent me questions for WPF! The test itself seemed crude: with grammar mistakes and misprints; in the WPF part (I decided to give them a go) there seemed errors in the questions themselves as I tested my responses in Visual Studio and later was said that I was still wrong. Sure, I warned about potential errors in their tests but there was no reaction whatsoever. In the end, they just said that my WPF skills were not proper to their requirements, even though I never transmitted to them my wish to work with this technology in the first place. Thus, from the hiring process I can only assume what a chaotic environment they must have internally and how hectically senior programmers have to compile tests for candidates and how insecurely it feels to work there as they can't acknowledge that they make mistakes too.