Pros
There were a few genuinely kind and capable individuals at the company, which made day-to-day work more bearable. Their presence brought some light to an otherwise awful environment - but given current trends, it's unclear how long they will remain.
Cons
Things were somewhat bearable until summer 2025, but then everything deteriorated rapidly. By the end of 2025, this establishment can no longer qualify as a company; it feels more like a prolonged psychological experiment on how far dysfunction can be pushed before everything collapses. Virtually everything is broken. It doesn't look like incompetence - there is a persistent impression that those in charge are deliberately embracing irrationality, and actively testing how absurd and detached from reality they can be. The prevailing attitude often feels like: "Yep, this makes no sense - but what are you gonna do about it, losers?" The organizational structure only reinforces this. For an organization that claims to build a SaaS product, the concentration of managerial staff is overwhelmingly high. It resembles an extreme version of "too many chiefs and not enough Indians," to the point where actual delivery is undermined. At the same time, it increasingly operates as a closed "boys’ club," where influence and proximity to leadership outweigh competence. Individuals with the right connections are given decision-making authority well beyond their level, resulting in disorganized, inconsistent, and often immature execution, with excessive internal politics concentrated in the wrong hands. There is also a complete inversion of meaning in how communication works. Leadership frequently asks for "constructive feedback," yet anything even slightly misaligned with the official narrative is unwelcome and immediately penalized. The only viable survival approach is performative agreement - express excitement, nod vigorously, and enthusiastically echo whatever the "boss" said. Independent thinking is considered a threat. This dynamic extends into culture and behavior. Toxic conduct is tolerated - and at times rewarded - when it aligns with leadership’s agenda, while individuals advocating for healthier, more sustainable practices are sidelined or labeled as problematic. Employees who are not sufficiently enthusiastic in endorsing every “visionary” direction are quickly categorized as disengaged or "not aligned with company values" (more on that below), regardless of their actual contributions. Ironically, these are often the individuals producing the only tangible value. The so-called “company values” appear to be a collection of slogans, borrowed wholesale from established companies, but without context or genuine intent. They resemble a form of cargo-cult imitation - an attempt to project maturity rather than trying to develop it. Anyway, they bear no resemblance to how the engineering department is actually operated. Nobody even tries to pretend that there’s a real story behind them. Career growth and development support? Oh, c'mon... Advancement tends to favor those who communicate in buzzwords, deflect responsibility, and (most importantly) align themselves politically, rather than those demonstrating accountability, ownership, or technical competence. There is little to no meaningful support from HR or leadership in fostering growth - if anything, the system works against it. The most troubling aspect, however, is the level of forced collective pretense. Poor decisions are not only made but presented with confidence and expectatios of praise. Employees are implicitly expected to endorse outcomes they clearly recognize as flawed, creating an environment of sustained denial that crosses into outright humiliation. In summary: a deeply unhealthy environment where appearance consistently overrides substance, integrity is deprioritized, and honesty is treated as a risk rather than a necessity. PS: One might ask - why do the "anonymous" surveys fail to reflect these issues? Well, people are not stupid - we are well aware of how "anonymous" such mechanisms actually are (kudos to one of the "bosses" who bragged to staff about his surveiling capabilities over them). No surprise that many choose self-censorship, while those who respond candidly often do so as they have already disengaged to the point where consequences no longer matter and mentally checked out.
