As a GIS professional who has worked with Esri software and customer support for many years, I regarded this company very highly. The conferences and events have always been fun to attend and the people working there have generally been fantastic to interact with. The technical support folks are always very professional and helpful too. Based on those things alone, I was very excited about the prospect of working for Esri - who wouldn't want to work in such an energized environment with good people? Well, based on my interview experience, I would say that if people were exposed to Esri's HR team alone, they would want nothing to do with the place. I hope Jack and Laura are paying attention - your interview process needs help. The first problem with your hiring process is your online system. It's clunky and buggy. And if you weren't aware, your HR people complain about it too! It makes their job more difficult. Next, sure, let's go ahead and address your HR folks. If I had read other reviews on Glassdoor prior to my interview, maybe I wouldn't have been so surprised about how they drag out the process and how unprofessional they can be. Initial contact with an HR representative is positive, but it's all downhill from there. It is nearly impossible to get a response to voicemail or email. On the rare chance that they do respond, the information they provide is inaccurate. Are they too busy? Are they simply not nice? I don't know the answer, but the poor treatment I received from them made the overall interview experience negative for me. Finally, the interview process itself. Brief phone conversation with HR up front. Technical phone interviews with current support analysts follow. I thoroughly enjoyed the "test" aspect of the phone interviews. The in-person, day-long interview experience is so-so. You spend the day jumping from person to person (some were more interested in conducting interviews than others). Some of the time is useful - brief sessions with HR, technical exercises, and chats with the bosses (your potential boss and the head guy). As for the remaining sessions, they would be better off designating that time to the technical exercises (which are rushed as-is) or maybe a group/panel interview instead. Because you are raced from one person to the next, and each has something specific to accomplish, you never really feel like they collectively get a good picture of who you are and where your skills lie. Even though you spend a lot of one-on-one time with people there, it ends up being a bit impersonal. I can only imagine what their post-interview process is like to discuss candidates. They didn't check references, which I felt was a loss.