What is the hiring process like at Aiven?

- This company is an excellent way to experience what it feels like to be on a sinking ship. - WFH - Benefits

The management has zero inkling of how to navigate the company and things are getting worst from their management, especially with their onboarding of new execs. They did manage to very swiftly and efficiently destroy the core values of Aiven, the very values that attracted many of the talents to the organization. Ownership: The management clearly lacks ownership from the ridiculous KPIs and sales motion that they preached. It’s clear that most of them have no idea how things work on the ground, and are used to commanding troops from their ivory tower. Their ideas would be better received if they actually led by example, but of course that doesn’t happen. Openness: Woe befall the souls those that dare to be open about their feedback or questions. When people on the ground voiced concerns or feedback on why certain KPIs or processes wouldn’t work well, they are met with sarcastic responses or brushed aside without a second thought. Some of these people are then marked for “not getting with the program”. People are then replaced by cronies that are referred in by these new management, or are silently demoted to a new role. Courage: This is probably the core value that is still actively practiced. It does take true courage to push through ridiculous execution ideas and expect everyone to be onboarded without any pushback, and it does take true courage to keep pulling in your friends while demoting the employees that have stayed with the company for some time. They then pat themselves on their back for excellent employee satisfaction, but of course the results are great when you just referred a bunch of new people in? It’s also a great way to flush out unsatisfied employees. Here’s a quick example: if a team has 10 members but 6 of them are new employees, and the results showed that 30% of the team are unhappy, you can almost say for certainty that the existing members are the ones that are unhappy, as the new employees are still going through onboarding. Talk about anonymity. If the new ideas, systems and processes worked, then why is the company struggling to retain talents? Why are the numbers not showing? Clearly something is wrong, and from everyone on the ground the reason is clear as day: the management just doesn’t cut it. To potential joiners: It’s an excellent opportunity to join a struggling company filled with challenges. It’s indeed not for everyone, so if you love a challenge of sailing on a sailing ship with incompetent captains then this is the right spot for you. To existing Aiveners: Have the courage to do the right thing for yourself.

- Some really great smart people to be worked with - Decent benefits - Flexible work schedule - Good Salary

- Constantly changing strategy, and missing targets because of it. Big push to switch to "Enterprise," when the product/company is not ready. - They preach values of openness, but the management teams are not transparent and don't listen to employee feedback - RTO policy - The job I was sold in the interview process was not the reality when I started - No ability for career progression in the foreseeable future.

* Compensation is OK for the industry, but not great anymore - you can find better jobs with the kind of skills that this position requires * Schedule flexibility allows for decent work-life balance * The technical challenges keep things engaging and intellectually stimulating * Direct supervisors are supportive and effective leaders * Team members are both professional and technically proficient

* The decision-making structure could benefit from streamlining. Multiple layers of input often result in mixed signals reaching individual contributors, making it challenging to align efforts with organizational goals. Leadership frequently requests delivery timelines for specific projects without considering the broader context of existing workload and competing priorities. * Compensation strategies appear to rely heavily on industry benchmarking data that may not fully capture the unique aspects of this workplace or its talent requirements. * The pace of change and shifting priorities can be overwhelming. New initiatives frequently emerge before current projects reach completion, creating a constant state of flux that impacts delivery timelines. * There's an opportunity to strengthen the feedback culture. System-level issues sometimes get personalized, despite teams putting in significant effort. Technical debt and infrastructure concerns that were well-understood at the ground level took considerable time to gain executive attention. * Strategic decisions would benefit from greater transparency around supporting data and success metrics. The rationale behind major choices often remains unclear to those executing the work. * The recent shift away from flexible/remote work and hiring arrangements seems counterintuitive, particularly given the strong performance and contributions from distributed team members. * Priority-setting processes lack clear governance. Decisions can be influenced more by persistence or timing rather than strategic importance or defined criteria. * During delivery planning sessions, there's a tendency to request timeline estimates for individual items without considering the broader workload context. The question of what existing commitments might need to be deprioritized to accommodate new requests is seldom addressed. * There appears to be a noticeable imbalance in resource allocation and organizational focus across departments. The Streaming division receives substantial support and headcount, while other revenue-generating units remain understaffed despite their significant financial contributions to the company. This disparity in treatment has created an unfortunate dynamic where well-resourced teams can occasionally override or dismiss input from their less-favored counterparts, leading to collaboration challenges and interdepartmental friction.

Decent salary, good international travel opportunities, interesting and kind colleagues

Executive leadership has no vision or appetite to stick to a plan. Despite hiring many people with the experience and skillset to win, leadership routinely ignores advice from within the house, over-commits to half-baked plans, assigns the wrong people to tasks, and then is unwilling to take accountability for continuously failing to deliver anything new.