The culture is deeply political, and growth often appears to depend more on favoritism, visibility, and personal connections than on performance, delivery, or technical strength. At senior levels especially, people with better internal networks seem to progress faster regardless of actual capability.
The recent layoffs further exposed these issues. Many employees retention decisions were not based on merit or contribution, but rather on who had stronger connections with senior leadership. For example, a few senior managers were not contributing to AI or coding, yet they were retained because they followed the "Yes, sir/ma'am" culture. This was extremely discouraging for people who had worked with dedication, delivered consistently, and received strong ratings over the years, only to see politics damage their career path.
In addition, there were visible signs of favoritism in how certain people were retained and rewarded. For example, stock grants for special retention-focused benefits appeared to be distributed selectively to a small set of favored employees, seemingly to ensure they stayed after the layoffs. This created an even stronger perception that loyalty to internal power structures mattered more than fairness or broad-based recognition.
Another concern is the use of internal evaluation mechanisms that appear unevenly applied. The company introduced tools and processes to assess employees to create the list for layoffs, but these were used more as justification against selected individuals rather than as objective systems to measure real performance or actual outcomes. When evaluation systems are not applied fairly and transparently, trust breaks down quickly.
Senior HR leadership in India appears to have NO independent voice and seems largely aligned with decisions coming from Paris rather than representing employee concerns locally. This leaves employees with limited confidence that their concerns will be heard or fairly escalated.
There is also a strong sense that senior management does not want independent or emerging leadership to grow in India. Leadership authority remains concentrated in Paris, and capable people in India often feel blocked, sidelined, or put in situations where long-term success becomes difficult. Instead of building strong local leadership, the system appears designed to preserve control from the top.
Overall, this can be a very frustrating place for sincere performers who expect meritocracy, transparency, technical credibility, and local leadership support.
