Almost everyone around you is pretty darn smart and works hard.
Managers are generally competent, smart, and well-intentioned, but not experienced and trained as managers, as they were mostly former engineers.
Salary and benefits are good, including free food.
The performance review system is complicated but understandable. You can generally understand pretty clearly what you need to do to get promoted and succeed, at least up to L5, Senior Software Engineer.
It isn't as good as it used to be. Ten years ago, the focus was entirely on doing the right thing for the user. Now, the focus is on keeping the money train going. This short-term thinking is hurting long-term potential and is often bad for users.
Management "Ethics" seem to be mainly: Whatever they can get away with, without annoying European and US governments too much, and makes money, is good, even if it is not good for our users.
Ten years ago, we had a lot more bottom-up innovation: 20% projects, taking risks, trying crazy innovative things. That's pretty much gone now. There's top-down planning, lots of status updates to management, proving that what you are doing is working and contributing to the organization's goals. There is much more bureaucracy than there used to be.
It's just another big company now. Good, but not exceptional the way it used to be.
Get back to the long-term thinking that made the company successful in the first place.
I was sent an online "Hiring Assessment". This is a 30-minute questionnaire comprised of several cross-checked "Strongly Disagree | Disagree | Neutral | Agree | Strongly Agree" questions asking about your work beliefs and past behaviors.
The process was split into two days. There were 5 interviews in total: * 3 virtual interviews one day * 2 the next day The interviews focused on coding algorithms for 4 of them, and Googlyness for the remaining one. The entire loop was conduc
Two design questions, two coding questions, and one behavior question. Coding questions were not directly searchable. Neither were they exactly the same as any peer code questions. The interviewers might have come up with their own.
I was sent an online "Hiring Assessment". This is a 30-minute questionnaire comprised of several cross-checked "Strongly Disagree | Disagree | Neutral | Agree | Strongly Agree" questions asking about your work beliefs and past behaviors.
The process was split into two days. There were 5 interviews in total: * 3 virtual interviews one day * 2 the next day The interviews focused on coding algorithms for 4 of them, and Googlyness for the remaining one. The entire loop was conduc
Two design questions, two coding questions, and one behavior question. Coding questions were not directly searchable. Neither were they exactly the same as any peer code questions. The interviewers might have come up with their own.