Two recruiters from two different teams reached out to me. The first one: With the first team, I spent 2 months ( yes 2! ) doing staggered Skype interviews with engineers, architects, Program Managers, hiring manager, teams in other geographies. I was willing to go along with this routine because it meant spending an hour each time in the morning over the 2 months. I was astonished by this process. At the end of the process, I was informed I was not a fit for the position after 10+ interviews. My analysis is as follows: This team had 2 engineers, one architect, 2 senior managers ( one in Asia ) , 3 program/product manager, one QA manager. The ratio of engineers to other members is abysmally low. The hiring manager wanted way more thought and strategic leadership than technical ability. This led me to believe that as good as Autodesk core products were, the rest of the organization did not have technical challenges. The second one: This team was thankfully more agile. I had 2 phone screens - hiring manager and architect before being called onsite. I met one engineer, phone interview with a high-level exec, 2 other managers. Except for the interview with the engineer, all the others interviews were too fluffy and asked situational/conflict-oriented questions. The engineer and me had a good discussion around technical stacks and challenges in this role. This team had more contractors than engineers. Again this team wanted more soft skills and I was not considered for this role. My takeaway from both interviews was that this firm is filled with a lot of mid-level managers who've been there a long time but don't necessarily know how to effect engineering change. Some prospective candidates may welcome these "coasting" positions but I felt I would've be severely underutilized here.