Pros: - Good pay. - Interesting engineering problems to tackle.

Cons: Shift from supportive management to a micromanagement approach focused on fear of poor performance reviews. Engineers are treated like children, with constant monitoring of their work to ensure they are meeting expectations. Performance is now measured by arbitrary metrics like Merge Request numbers, commit counts, and comments, rather than actual contributions. Employees are afraid to speak up for fear of being fired, with an apparent goal to have a certain percentage of performance-related attritions. Surveys are being selectively shared, with management only disclosing portions that align with their perspective. The shift to impact reviews discourages teamwork and forces only doing "impactful" work, leading to tech debt, hacks, and quick fixes that make systems unmaintainable. Upper management imposes rigid “talent practices” without considering employee input, creating a toxic environment. ICs are held to strict accountability standards, while upper management isn't.

Pros: Pay and benefits before 2024

Cons: Leadership Development Needed: The engineering leadership would benefit from management training. The company currently assesses employee engagement and happiness based on the number of emojis received in posts and evaluates engineers solely using metrics like lines of code written and completed tickets. However, these metrics are considered inaccurate, immature, and ineffective. Shifting Expectations: Employees often find it challenging to understand the criteria for evaluation. When changes occur, they are not adequately communicated. Unfortunately, surprise documents labeling individuals as failures without actionable feedback are common. Fear-Based Environment: The prevailing atmosphere is one of stress and self-preservation. Blame and finger-pointing are rampant. Management frequently emphasizes the company’s competition-related challenges to instill fear. Feedback Disregarded: Feedback provided to management appears to vanish into thin air. Conversely, feedback received from management tends to be unhelpful. Mixed Performance: Staff engineers exhibit varying levels of effectiveness. Some inadvertently create more problems than they solve for their teams. Ambiguous Engineering Principles: While “Move faster” is a guiding principle, the direction remains unclear. Projects have arbitrary deadlines but lack well-defined requirements. Leadership could set an example by improving the company culture. Transparency Gap: Although transparency is touted as a core value, it is not consistently practiced. Silent layoffs have occurred, and laid-off employees have been discouraged from submitting negative reviews. A targeted list of individuals seems to be under scrutiny, hindering their chances of success. Talent Drain: Capable engineers and leaders are leaving in significant numbers. Two out of the three founders are less involved, and the remaining founder lacks a clear vision for running the company effectively.

Pros: Supportive colleagues and management, lots of growth opportunities, great work-life balance, strong sense of contribution.

Cons: It's the best place I've worked at, so far, with no cons.