Zeta

There are no pros, only cons.

A Typical “LALA” Company Where Connections Matter More Than Engineering This is a typical “LALA” company where, from my experience, who you know can matter more than what you know. If you have connections to upper management—or are a junior of the CEO—you seem to have a much easier path to promotions and leadership positions, even if you don't have much actual engineering knowledge. Engineering leadership without engineering depth One example is a VP who participates in serious backend architecture and design discussions, yet can spend those discussions talking about things as trivial as the colour of the UI. This person was in the leadership of my team before me.

During my tenure, our team had to give him KT through 2–3 separate seven-day workshops just to explain what our system actually does and how it works. Yes—multiple seven-day sessions of KT for a senior engineering leader to understand his own team's system. And even after all that, he would still repeatedly ask how the system works during design presentations. These weren't casual discussions. These were serious backend architecture and design discussions. I'm not going to comment on his intelligence. I think you get the gist.

If a senior engineering leader needs multiple seven-day KT sessions from his own team to understand the system he is supposed to lead, and still asks basic questions about how it works during design discussions, while talking about things like UI colour, it is fair to question how that person ended up in an engineering leadership position. And when you also know that this person was a junior of the CEO, it becomes even harder not to question whether engineering competence is actually the deciding factor. Jira tickets & Engineering My manager, a DOE, seemed to measure engineering primarily by Jira ticket closure.

From my experience working under him, whether the design was correct, maintainable, scalable, or technically sound appeared to matter much less than whether the ticket was closed on time. A good design requiring one week? Less attractive. A bad design that can be delivered in two days? Much better. Because the ticket gets closed faster. That's not engineering leadership. That's optimizing a Jira dashboard and calling it engineering. He would also call me over weekends when there was an issue and expect me to help, yet the company could still fire me afterward. And again, this is someone who was a junior of the CEO. Promotions and “fairness” The company talks about being fair, but my experience made me question that very strongly.

One senior leader was the manager of an employee he was also romantically involved with. She worked under him for approximately two years while they were in a relationship. During that period, she received promotions despite not meeting the company's eligibility criteria for those promotions. They are now officially married, and after getting married, he is being moved to another organization so that he no longer manages her. I don't claim to know every internal detail behind those promotions. But the obvious questions remain: How was the conflict of interest handled? Who approved those promotions? Why was nobody questioning this before?

When your manager is also your romantic partner and you receive promotions while working directly under them, employees are naturally going to question whether those promotions were genuinely merit-based. And then I was fired for “performance. The company wanted to reduce approximately 15% of its workforce, and I was fired. The reason I was given? Performance. Let's talk about my actual performance. I was part of a core team and delivered three epics in one quarter, while my core team members delivered approximately two. For approximately six months, there were no 1:1s scheduled with me. No warning. No PIP. No conversation telling me my performance was going down.

Then my latest project's delivery was delayed because I was legitimately sick for approximately one week. And here's what makes this particularly ridiculous: During my actual firing call, they specifically pointed to that project and said, essentially, “See, this was the particular project which was delayed. Yes. The project that was delayed while I was legitimately sick. That was being presented to me as evidence of my poor performance. And that was the only concrete example they pointed to during my firing call. If my performance was genuinely bad enough to fire me, where were you for the previous six months? You had six months to tell me, give me feedback, schedule 1:1s, warn me, and give me a chance to improve. You did none of it.

Then the company needed to reduce headcount and suddenly my “performance” became the reason. That's not performance management. That's finding a justification after the decision has already been made. And if performance genuinely was the reason, why was the concrete example brought up during my firing call a project delayed while I was legitimately sick for a week? I wasn't given sympathy or an opportunity to discuss the circumstances. The delay was simply brought up as evidence against me. And yes, I have also questioned whether my gender played a role. I can't claim to know what was inside the decision-makers' heads. But when the explanation doesn't match your performance history, you naturally start questioning what the real reason was.

My takeaway My experience has taught me that you can: Be part of a core team. Deliver three epics in a quarter while your core team members deliver approximately two. Take ownership. Work weekends when the company needs you. Receive no performance warning for six months. And still be told at the end: “Your performance wasn't good enough.

Meanwhile, people who are juniors of the CEO or have the right connections can progress into leadership. Senior engineering leaders can require 2–3 seven-day KT sessions from their own teams just to understand their systems, then participate in serious backend discussions while talking about things like UI colour. Your own manager can prioritize Jira ticket closure over engineering quality, while still expecting you to work over weekends when something breaks. A manager can have a romantic relationship with an employee directly reporting to him for two years, during which she receives promotions despite not meeting the company's eligibility criteria, and only after they get married is the reporting relationship changed.

And then, when the company needs to reduce headcount, an employee can suddenly be told that performance is the problem despite receiving no meaningful performance feedback for six months. Would I recommend this company? Based on my experience, absolutely not.

Maybe stop pretending this is an engineering-driven, meritocratic company when connections, loyalty to the right people, Jira ticket counts, and internal politics seem to matter more than engineering competence.