Great technology (actually unbelievable software) Good engineers Good management remain Weekly beer bash (in RTP anyway)
Engineers are considered commodity items.
Engineering productivity is completely discounted.
We are losing way too many good engineers.
The board of directors is determined to drive the company into the dirt.
Bad management cancer is limiting career opportunities.
Bad management cancer is spreading (metric Nazis - see above).
I have to believe the board is destroying this company (of course, there's no way I can possibly know for sure). I do know NetApp keeps looking for cheaper ways to replace good engineering talent, and it's not working. The board's vision is this: a highly paid management and sales organization, and out-sourced everything else. Obviously, this is not going to work.
Tom Georgens was a good man who was not "sexy" enough for the board, so they dumped him. Yes, there were problems recently. But things will improve, and now the wrong person will get credit (sad).
My advice: fire the board of directors (I know this is not possible) and replace them with some progressive innovators who are not scared of "activist investors". Shift your spending priorities from retaining good management to retaining good engineers. Invest more in engineering productivity. Encourage your good existing engineers to develop new skills instead of replacing them with new hires. This will greatly improve employee loyalty.
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
There were three rounds. The first round was a written round which consisted of aptitude. The second round was the technical round. The third round was the HR round. The interview was simple and went well, so well that they selected me.
I had a phone interview with the recruiter about the role. Then, I had a 30-minute phone interview with the manager of the team regarding my resume, people, and time management skills. This was followed by an onsite interview consisting of four round
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
There were three rounds. The first round was a written round which consisted of aptitude. The second round was the technical round. The third round was the HR round. The interview was simple and went well, so well that they selected me.
I had a phone interview with the recruiter about the role. Then, I had a 30-minute phone interview with the manager of the team regarding my resume, people, and time management skills. This was followed by an onsite interview consisting of four round