Retail and Payments team is where ambition and careers go to die.
Pros
Basic office infrastructure, possibly food provisions, and relatively decent pay, nothing beyond that.
Cons
On the surface, the company appears to have positive reviews, but many of these are influenced and encouraged by HR. ----- Lack of Vision ----- * The Retail/Payments ERP division lacks a defined product roadmap or strategic direction, leading to reactive and inconsistent decision-making. * Business goals are often unclear or misaligned with technical execution, resulting in low-impact releases. * Innovation and long-term product planning receive minimal attention, causing stagnation in both the platform and the teams. * Teams are largely operating in silos, without alignment on broader objectives or cohesive technical direction. ----- Weak Leadership ----- * The Engineering VP lacks both technical expertise and leadership skills, leading to poor guidance and low team morale. * Success is narrowly tracked using "story points", a flawed and inconsistent metric that varies between teams and doesn't reflect actual business value. * There’s little to no focus on outcome-driven development, user-centric design, or measurable feature impact. * Strategic decisions are often arbitrary or politically driven, rather than based on data or industry best practices. ----- Poor Management ----- * The India-based development team Director provides minimal strategic or operational value, and could likely be replaced by a fresher with little to no impact on the team. * Managers across Development, QA, Product Ownership, and Business Analysis lack clarity on their responsibilities and frequently fail to communicate expectations effectively. * Delivery timelines are poorly managed due to a lack of ownership and understanding within leadership. * Cross-functional collaboration is weak, with planning meetings often resulting in unproductive discussions and no actionable outcomes. ----- Resistance to Change ----- * Many decision-makers are nearing retirement and have been with the company for decades, leaving them disconnected from current software development practices and industry advancements. * Their understanding of the software development lifecycle is outdated, with limited interest in adopting modern engineering standards, tools, or methodologies. * Efforts to implement modern processes, automation, or best practices are often met with resistance and dismissed as unnecessary, typically under the pretext of "avoiding additional work". * The leadership's reluctance to evolve creates a stagnant environment where innovation is limited and teams remain stuck in legacy workflows. ----- Inflated Titles, Deflated Skills ----- * Many “senior” engineers operate at a junior level, handling basic maintenance and patchwork tasks instead of driving technical design or architecture. * The current managers, directors, and VPs in engineering are unfit for their roles, significantly hindering the overall growth of the product. * Although the product is positioned as a “cloud-based” solution, a substantial portion of the engineering team lacks fundamental knowledge of cloud development. * There's a noticeable gap between job titles and actual capabilities, which becomes evident during cross-functional discussions, peer reviews and leadership interactions. ----- Toxic Environment ----- * Layoffs have disproportionately targeted individuals who raise questions or advocate for higher standards, discouraging critical thinking and transparency. * Retained employees often maintain their position through alignment with leadership rather than performance, creating a culture of sycophancy. * New hires are often tasked with high-risk work and are implicitly warned, often with threats of termination, not to questioning existing norms, fostering a culture of fear and silence. * Psychological safety is low, teams operate under constant pressure, with an unspoken “don’t speak up” rule in place. ----- Career Stagnation ----- * Skills gained in this environment rarely align with market standards, making external transitions difficult after 2–3 years. * There's minimal support for career development, learning, or upskilling, employees are expected to maintain legacy systems with no real growth path. * Promotions and role transitions are not merit-based, which demotivates high-performing individuals. * Management is fully aware of this dynamic and depends on employee stagnation to retain staff, instead of promoting genuine engagement or career growth.
