Meta reviews

With fast promotion comes fast firing. It's up or out policy up to a certain level. Not a good place for senior engineers joining. Too much stress in the team driven by performance reviews, which is the most aggressive that I've ever known. Emphasis is on individual impact, due to which there's lot of distrust within the team. No stack ranking, but a curve is implemented a org level. This is not a big deal in other companies but here it means 'out'. Managers main job is to write performance reviews, and this often leads to micro management that can be extremely frustrating to senior engineers. There's lot of work duplication, most managers (even directors) ignore it as performance reviews is all about impact. Most engineers know that everyone wants to write code and make impact, so ignore the code duplication. Some teams are hiring just for the head count, not much impactful work. This becomes a problem for senior engineers as they have to invent work or get out. Before joining a team check out their roadmap for at least a year. This is a good place if you want make money at the cost of WLB. Not a place to be innovative, which inherently carries risk and takes time. It's a risk because if there's no impact you'll be fired. Most of the engineers work to satisfy performance reviews. My work is determined keeping performance review as the guideline. But company will be fine, lot of good engineers capable of quickly delivering a fix or hack a feature.

Short term thinking and high pressure to perform. The twice-a-year-performance-review system creates a lot of anxiety, people are goaling on short-term impact over long term sustainability and the environment is full of people who will backstab you using hidden feedback to promote their agenda. Code is terrible, buggy and mostly "hacky" to achieve short term projects.