Pros
Fast-paced culture that rewards adaptability to changing and sometimes implicit priorities
Cons
- There is a strong perception that success depends heavily on aligning closely with management rather than on merit, which can discourage open feedback and independent thinking.
- In my experience, certain personality types tend to do better here—particularly those who are highly social, politically aware, and comfortable navigating informal influence networks.
- Middle management can be inconsistent and, at times, dismissive. For example, during a 1:1 with a skip-level manager, I was interrupted repeatedly and saw clear disengagement (e.g., yawning), which contrasted with their more attentive behaviour in public settings.
- Some managers expect employees to “read the room” rather than clearly communicating expectations. When asking for feedback or guidance on career progression, responses are often vague and lack actionable direction.
- There are instances where workplace dynamics feel more political than performance-driven, with some individuals advancing despite behaviours that negatively impact team culture.
- The CTO appears to have limited visible involvement in technical discussions or product-level decision-making. From an engineering perspective, it is unclear how technical direction is shaped beyond high-level presentations.
- A principal engineer leads a small, informal group that heavily influences tooling and technology decisions. These decisions are often presented as directives, with limited opportunity for broader discussion, and concerns raised are not always addressed transparently.
- I observed a case where a colleague’s probation period was extended without clear justification, which ultimately led to their departure. Situations like this raise concerns about consistency and fairness in performance management. Additionally, some team leads appear to progress despite limited leadership capability, potentially due to tenure and alignment with senior stakeholders.