High technical standard for most employees.
Software-focused company.
Quality products.
Good culture (in RTP - so far).
Weekly Beer Bash in RTP is outstanding.
Cisco wanna-be (what a shame)
Mid-to-low compensation
Short vacation time (only 12 days)
Small bonuses
Shrinking benefits
Not as progressive as they should/could be
Way too much emphasis on Greatest Place to Work
NetApp is a really good place to work that has the potential to be a great place to work. Some of the company founders are still around, and I have to believe they exert a positive influence in making the culture at least feel progressive.
Unfortunately, Sr. Execs are making the same mistakes many other companies have made. They focus on hiring low-salary employees in third world countries, fill executive positions by hiring outside instead of promoting from within, contain costs by not giving raises and cutting benefits, inequitably share the wealth of the company, and worst of all, think because they do well in Greatest Place to Work surveys, they falsely believe they're doing a good job creating a great company. What they don't realize is that doing well in those silly surveys is more about hiring lower-quality employees with reduced expectations than it is about improving the culture of the company.
NetApp is not a sweatshop, though, and management, up to this point, is mostly reasonable to very good. They got a few things right. The weekly RTP Beer Bash is a small investment with a massive payback of goodwill (everyone has a blast socializing with colleagues).
There is a real Cisco cancer, however, and it needs to be removed, though I don't have high hopes. I know to avoid those areas, but sooner or later, it will spread to the point of pervasiveness.
Advice to management: Forget Cisco. Stop hiring from there. Look to Google, Amazon, or Facebook to model yourselves. Be a progressive company. Throw convention out the window, kick MBAs out the door. Truly splurge on your staff-level employees, then watch innovation skyrocket and productivity improve.
First, I had a telephone discussion with the hiring manager. Then, HR quickly sent me an email to schedule an on-site interview. The on-site visit lasted about 3.5 hours. It started with a face-to-face interview with the hiring manager and his manag
One phone interview and one on-site interview. Everyone was kind, and the questions were not too hard.
I met their engineers at a campus career fair. After several minutes of chatting about my internship project, which is highly related to their products, I had totally forgotten about this conversation. Then, after maybe one to two months, HR called m
First, I had a telephone discussion with the hiring manager. Then, HR quickly sent me an email to schedule an on-site interview. The on-site visit lasted about 3.5 hours. It started with a face-to-face interview with the hiring manager and his manag
One phone interview and one on-site interview. Everyone was kind, and the questions were not too hard.
I met their engineers at a campus career fair. After several minutes of chatting about my internship project, which is highly related to their products, I had totally forgotten about this conversation. Then, after maybe one to two months, HR called m