QAD

Interviewed for Software Engineer - Full Stack role at QAD. The interview process and AI-focused practical format initially sounded modern and interesting. The communication before the interview clearly mentioned an AI-native engineering round focused on problem-solving, AI-assisted development, engineering judgment, and collaboration. However, my actual interview experience was disappointing. The interviewer appeared to be from a recently acquired startup/team under QAD, and the overall communication style felt unprofessional and discouraging. Throughout the session, there were constant interruptions while answering questions, which made it difficult to properly explain my thought process or approach. There were repeated comments like “even freshers can answer this,” delivered in a dismissive tone. Technical pressure and challenging questions are understandable in interviews, but the way they were communicated created an uncomfortable atmosphere rather than a collaborative discussion. Another issue was that although the interview communication strongly emphasized AI-augmented engineering and practical coding, a significant part of the discussion shifted toward system design-related questioning and expectation alignment that did not fully match the original interview brief shared beforehand. Because of the interviewer’s tone and interruptions, I gradually became defensive and uncomfortable during the session. Instead of focusing naturally on solving problems, I found myself trying to guess what exact answers the interviewer expected. QAD’s AI-native interview concept itself has strong potential, but I believe more attention should be given to interviewer professionalism, communication standards, and alignment between the communicated interview format and the actual interview experience — especially when integrating teams from acquired startups/products. A technical interview should challenge candidates while still maintaining professionalism, clarity, and mutual respect.

I had a positive discussion with the HR team and the hiring manager. However, my interaction with the India Head was disappointing and came across as unnecessarily dismissive. Having conducted many interviews myself, I believe professional courtesy matters regardless of how a conversation goes. Interviews are short interactions, and sometimes candidates may be nervous, communication may not be perfectly aligned, or discussions may drift and that is part of human interaction. What concerned me more was the way previous leadership exits, including that of the CEO, were discussed and normalized as routine tactical decisions. While maintaining a high performance bar and making difficult organizational decisions is part of leadership, the manner in which these situations are described often talks a volume about the broader culture of an organization and a leader thought-process. Leadership styles driven by arrogance or entitlement(often misunderstood as deciplined) may create immediate tactical impact, but often end up causing greater long-term organizational damage.

I had a disappointing experience interviewing with QAD for a Director, Engineering position. Initially, I was asked to schedule the interview via their calendar. However, during the first scheduled slot, the interviewer did not join, and there was no prior communication or follow-up regarding the no-show. On a second attempt, I was asked again to schedule the interview, but this time it was canceled at the last minute without adequate notice. Despite these issues, I later received a generic rejection email stating that they “enjoyed getting to know me” and thanking me for my time, which did not reflect the experience, as the interview process was never started and poorly managed. Overall, the process felt disorganized and lacked respect for the candidate’s time. I would recommend improving coordination, communication, and professionalism in the interview process.

Positive Aspects: The HR team was professional, polite and courteous throughout the process. They communicated clearly and kept me informed at each stage. Areas for Improvement: The interview panels across all three rounds maintained a very formal demeanor with limited engagement or warmth. While professionalism is important, the lack of rapport-building made it difficult to envision the workplace culture. The serious atmosphere made the interviews feel one-sided rather than conversational, which impacted my enthusiasm for the role as the process progressed. Advice for the Company: Consider creating a more welcoming interview environment. Candidates are also evaluating whether they'd enjoy working with the team and a more balanced approach, professional yet personable, would improve the candidate experience.

"I gave an interview in March 2025, first round with the HR. Second round with a director and the final interview with a VP. I was told that I was selected and the offer letter will be rolled out soon. Then I got a call from the HR stating that my role is on hold due to budget issues and Organisational restructuring. After that I tried to call up the HR multiple times and HR went missing no reply over the email as well as on calls. This is a highly unprofessional organisation with an unethical Hiring team they should stop posting fake Job and waste candidate's time. Never apply for this unprofessional organisation unless you want to waste your time. QAD is a waste of time and effort nothing more, They are following an unethical and unprofessional practise as they are posting fake Jobs. They only conduct scam interviews to waste your time so be careful."