The business side of the org is riddled with unqualified yes-people and virtue-signallers. When the COO makes one of his many cringe-worthy, internal pronouncements on Slack, you only need to see the explosion of uniformly positive reaction emojis to realize there is a deeply unhealthy dynamic being cultivated from within.
Very slow-moving environment with lots of friction to getting features shipped. There are plenty of sacred cows, and management appears to be disinterested in addressing systemic productivity issues outside of making it a failing at an individual/moral level (i.e., work harder). This undermines meaningful discussion of how productivity could be improved and indicates a lack of understanding of the actual issues that product teams face.
"Coaching" is just "performance management." Your coach may not be on your team, may be junior to you, or not even of the same specialty, so there's a real limit to the material assistance they can provide you in your day-to-day work. There is no feedback mechanism in place if your coach is abusing their position, or, for that matter, for literally any other issue you might have (they do look at Glassdoor reviews, however).
Fully vested employees (4-year+ tenure) are often absent in one way or another, or (understandably) refuse to engage with the questionable organization and coaching structures that have been set up. This leads to onboarding, beyond a superficial level, just not being done in many pockets of the organization.
Poor remuneration and, depending on who your coach is and what part of the organization you're in, little opportunity for career advancement.
Completely redefine coaching (to be actual coaches) and product manager (to be actual product managers) roles. Consider project manager as a specialty, and measure impact at a team level.
Optimize for developer productivity.
If someone has a non-technical background, perhaps they are not a good fit for a technical company, especially not for a senior position at that company, as they are never going to be able to take any initiative with any hope of success, except maintaining the status quo.
Technical interview focused on coding and system design problems, emphasizing clean code, scalability, and architectural decisions. Received detailed, professional feedback highlighting strengths, weaknesses, and areas for improvement in design and
The interview process included: * Recruiter screening * Three technical interviews: * Language-agnostic, AI-assisted coding * Unassisted coding in Java * System design * One leadership interview * One hiring manager interview The proces
The interview process consisted of multiple rounds. It started with a recruiter phone screen focusing on my background and motivation. Then, I had a technical coding challenge via HackerRank, followed by a virtual interview with two engineers. That
Technical interview focused on coding and system design problems, emphasizing clean code, scalability, and architectural decisions. Received detailed, professional feedback highlighting strengths, weaknesses, and areas for improvement in design and
The interview process included: * Recruiter screening * Three technical interviews: * Language-agnostic, AI-assisted coding * Unassisted coding in Java * System design * One leadership interview * One hiring manager interview The proces
The interview process consisted of multiple rounds. It started with a recruiter phone screen focusing on my background and motivation. Then, I had a technical coding challenge via HackerRank, followed by a virtual interview with two engineers. That