Pros
Some colleagues were genuinely talented, kind, supportive, and committed to doing good work.
Cons
While there were many talented and supportive colleagues, the management culture often made it difficult for people to grow and do their best work. Personal development did not feel like a clear priority, and career progression seemed poorly connected to actual work quality, technical contribution, or team feedback. The environment often felt highly top-down, with frequent micromanagement, unclear goals, and limited ownership. In some cases, subjective opinions from non-technical stakeholders appeared to carry more weight than objective performance or peer evaluation. This created confusion about what good performance actually meant and where employees should focus their energy. The graduate program could have been a mutually supportive environment, but it sometimes encouraged unnecessary competition instead of collaboration. Incentives seemed to reward relationship management and political behaviour more than strong execution, problem-solving, or technical growth. Conflict resolution was also weak. People who tried to clarify requirements or solve problems could be judged more on tone than on the underlying issue, while passive-aggressive communication or unclear direction from more senior people was not always addressed. This created a feeling that the company focused more on interpersonal optics than on fixing real process problems. Project management was another major issue. Planning, ownership, and accountability were often unclear, and projects were frequently delayed. Overall, the company had good people, but the management systems, evaluation process, and project execution culture made it hard for those people to succeed.
