CrowdStrike reviews

But, quickly I learned that this is a company only for those who can survive the politics. Very rich and strong product heads and old timers unwilling to change and adapt. Some still think this as a startup which can survive the long game. Absolutely no process and completely hierarchical. If the head of the PG says something, that becomes the priority and the roadmap. People do get burned out due to extreme pressure - customer issues, outages and even some meaningless escalations. Some of those acquired companies are full of BS. Those were done just for the hype and stock market push. Remember - many of the companies which are breached cannot say in public that they were using the CRWD products because of legal contracts. Security is like insurance. People can mark you non-compliant for not having it.

Upper leadership now see engineering as a cog in the wheel, and are requiring that nearly all hiring be outside of the US despite much of the engineering team being scattered remotely across the US. They also attempted to roll out a stack ranking system just before the layoff. Diversity in engineering is non-existent. Engineering is never given enough time to address technical debt and scale issues, and are inundated by new and sometimes useless features and products that may drive ARR or retain high-paying customers. Upper leadership say they're committed to quality, but don't prioritize latent security issues and laid off over half of the QA staff even after July 19. Engineering strategy for quality focuses on reactive rather than proactive. Scope creep is constant. The SDLC is one-size-fits-all or rather one-size-fits-one and tons of overhead and checkboxes rather than helping with execution. There are no success metrics tied to products or projects and therefore no accountability. Several products or projects have few customers, but are still kept running and funded by leaders who tell tall tales. The company has been around long enough that new leaders reinvent the wheel to make a name for themselves building atop existing tech debt, and tenured, ineffective employees can continue to ride on early successes without being productive. Disagreeing with leadership and committing is a daily occurrence.