Established leader in its segment.
Engineering-oriented culture.
As with any large organization, your impressions will vary based on locale and who your boss is.
Decent comp package and benefits.
Established leader in its segment that became complacent. The need to move BIG-IP service offerings into the public cloud environment has been readily apparent for some years now.
They are a classic example of "The Innovator's Dilemma" – a company that is being displaced by underdogs and was too complacent to act on it earlier.
The new CEO is driving change by cutting with a sledgehammer rather than a scalpel.
This will most likely result in underperformance of current cash cows. The hope is that new offerings will create value faster than the damage being inflicted reduces it.
The new CEO and his crew need to "skip a level" and talk to people in the trenches to understand the long-term damage being done to current offerings by the way cost-cutting is being implemented.
The new leadership team, brought in with the new CEO, does not seem to trust the old guard, and this is probably why some of the changes are not wise in the mid-to-long term. As it stands at the moment, F5 is two companies with little trust between them.
I had two rounds. The first one was with a hiring manager, mostly just asking about experience and work history. The second round was three hours, with three 45-minute interviews and breaks in between. This was mainly a technical interview.
Phone call with the recruiter, then a technical meeting and the meeting with the manager, then the offer was sent. The technical meeting was supposed to be just 1 hour, instead it lasted 1.5 hours. The process was rather short and simple.
The overall impression is quite disappointing. The recruiter didn't even take the time, after I went through 3 interviews, to communicate the results or feedback (negative, I presume) after the technical interview. Management and technical people see
I had two rounds. The first one was with a hiring manager, mostly just asking about experience and work history. The second round was three hours, with three 45-minute interviews and breaks in between. This was mainly a technical interview.
Phone call with the recruiter, then a technical meeting and the meeting with the manager, then the offer was sent. The technical meeting was supposed to be just 1 hour, instead it lasted 1.5 hours. The process was rather short and simple.
The overall impression is quite disappointing. The recruiter didn't even take the time, after I went through 3 interviews, to communicate the results or feedback (negative, I presume) after the technical interview. Management and technical people see