Pros: The company has some great benefits, and in general, it's a good work environment. The executives go above and beyond to communicate. You can also expect to gain a variety of experience.

Cons: The work-life balance isn't good, and you aren't likely to be recognized for your accomplishments. But what company does that anyway?

Pros: Great colleagues, family-orientated company. There are a ton of incentives, from gym membership and an international cafeteria to stock options and employee parties.

Cons: Typical managers have more than eight employees to manage. This equates to managers not being aware of the duties and tasks an employee is taking on. The last four years have equated to cut-backs (i.e., layoffs due to "TRANSFORMATIONS"). Management has difficulty directing talent in the department I was within. There is no room to push through the glass ceiling to management UNLESS you find a department that is not cutting back due to the transformation.

Pros: Open "cube culture," where even top execs have cubes instead of offices. Frequent "all-hands" meetings, where execs address employees directly and in-person, help to boost morale. Perks like a company gym, bagel Friday, and monthly beer bashes also contribute to boosting morale.

Cons: Single product company with life-cycles so long that your children might someday see the feature you were working on. Some of the process tools used are OK, but many are so bad they are preventing a significant amount of work from being done (e.g., QC). I really do not know how long NetApp can sustain this. I was so glad to go to a place where I work on something and ship it in the same few months. At NetApp, the product I worked on for almost two years finally shipped 6 months after I left. The performance review process is, to me, completely unreasonable. 60% of all employees are given a "3" rating, which basically means you get to keep your job. If you're lucky, you get a cost-of-living raise. The top 30% or so get higher raises, and the bottom 10% better start looking for another job. The big problem is that this is "rolled up" through the company hierarchy, so people deciding your rating could be 2 or 3 levels above you who in no way know your work. Since I was a manager, I had the opportunity to see how this worked, and I saw many instances of gross unfairness. Some other manager could be a better cheerleader to his boss than me, so my tight, productive testing team with great engineers would get the low ratings, and a bloated team that contributes much less would steal the 1s and 2s.