Google

Good to have on your CV.

It's just too intense. There is constant pressure to deliver "perfect" and scalable solutions. The performance review is overly bureaucratic. Promotions are unfair; it mostly depends on how good your manager is and how well people know you. As a result, everyone constantly wastes time in pointless meetings and talking about their work just to gain visibility, as opposed to actually working. Risk-taking is not rewarded; you should not bother spending time on projects that are not guaranteed to succeed. It is better to land a mediocre, incomplete product that will live long enough to get you promoted before getting killed off. The team I was on saw many of the most senior VPs and directors abandoning the project when they saw that it wasn't profitable. This is unfair because those at the bottom of the hierarchy do not have access to these profit margins, but they end up paying the cost of the failure. Quantity is highly favored, and quality is silently punished. For example, I interviewed many candidates and spent a lot of time and effort to ensure that my interview reports were well-written and detailed. But I noticed that my colleagues hardly cared about this and wrote short and appallingly written reports. Guess which interviewer was shamed on? Me, because apparently I was "slower" than my peers. I want to say that the layoffs made things worse, but I'm starting to think that's not true. If anything, what the layoffs did is really just shed light on everything that's wrong with the company.

Be 100% transparent on how performance and promotions occur. ICs who don't understand what goes on in manager-only meetings are so significantly disadvantaged.