Pros: Good leadership and great work-life balance

Cons: They should pay people more.

Pros: Slalom used to be a strong company with a solid reputation (around a 4.5-star experience), especially before and during the early stages of COVID. There were many smart, capable, and genuinely good people to work with, and collaboration within teams was often positive. However, after about a year into COVID, the culture noticeably shifted. The primary value emphasized became revenue and growth targets, with frequent focus on how quickly the company could reach higher financial milestones. As this shift happened, many experienced and respected team members began leaving, which further impacted team stability and morale. While there are still talented individuals within the organization, the overall experience changed significantly as people and culture took a back seat to numbers and delivery metrics.

Cons: I am sharing this feedback based on my direct experience. Over an extended period, I was subjected to repeated one-on-one meetings that were not focused on growth or support, but instead centered on persistent criticism and personal devaluation. These meetings frequently began with statements questioning whether I deserved my role, my compensation, or my title. This pattern created ongoing psychological pressure rather than constructive feedback. One of the most damaging situations involved being held solely responsible for managing a difficult team dynamic that was clearly impacting the project and client delivery. I escalated concerns appropriately and requested leadership guidance or support. Despite this, I was instructed to manage the situation independently and was later repeatedly reminded that I had “failed” in handling it, even though no leadership intervention or support was provided. Over time, a strong culture of fear developed. Interactions felt punitive rather than supportive, and communication became guarded and defensive. I felt constant pressure to monitor my words, behavior, and even normal professional interactions out of concern that they could later be used against me. This environment discouraged openness, collaboration, and honest dialogue, and replaced them with anxiety, self-censorship, and fear of repercussions. There was also a strong culture of rank-based control. I was explicitly warned against interacting with senior leaders beyond a certain level, as if normal professional communication required permission. Even respectful and appropriate interactions with leadership were later framed as inappropriate, reinforcing fear, isolation, and a sense of not belonging. Performance discussions followed a repeated and rigid pattern: framing issues as either a lack of care or a lack of competence, without acknowledging context, effort, or external constraints. Positive feedback from clients, architects, and team leads was dismissed outright, undermining objective evidence of performance and creating confusion and self-doubt. Over time, this environment resulted in severe stress, anxiety, and physical symptoms. I remained in the role longer than I should have due to professional responsibility, family obligations, and ongoing project commitments—not because the environment was healthy or sustainable. In my experience, this was not a psychologically safe workplace. Empathy, accountability, and ethical leadership were lacking, and harmful behaviors were allowed to continue without consequence.

Pros: Great company mindset Growth and learning opportunities

Cons: Some clients are hard to work with.