Poor member benefits with a company based on high member satisfaction - Manager CGI Employee Review

1.0
Apr 13, 2022
Recommend
CEO approval
Business Outlook

Pros

For a while, I had great management, but ultimately, they left for many of the reasons that would ultimately empower me to leave as well.

Cons

The benefits are bad. They get worse when you leave if you think try to employ what was promised while working. Make sure you leave early in the month since coverage will not extend a normal 30 days like competition. Moreover, the annual performance review system promoted and endorsed practically forces averages-bad ratings year 1. To have a 1% increase when inflation is 8.5% is unacceptable, especially if a member’s performance was solid-high. Averaging performance ratings and lowering what would be higher staff ratings is an outdated practice that goes against the member values advertised internally. Even worse, publicly the company will highlight profit, but internal employees know the profit came because of a loss of staff, no matter how many people were hired during the previous quarter. While CGI could be great, their practices will limit progress and cost the organization all of their highest performing team members.

Explore other reviews about CGI

5.0
Jul 1, 2026
Recommend
CEO approval
Business Outlook

Pros

work life balance was great

Cons

Little ability to move up in career

1.0
Jun 16, 2026
Anonymous employee
Recommend
CEO approval
Business Outlook

Pros

no specific positives to highlight from my perspective

Cons

I worked at CGI in both India and the USA and observed similar workplace culture concerns across both locations. The only real difference was HR—India HR felt more supportive, while my experience with USA HR was disappointing. My employment ended shortly after maternity leave due to an alleged “lack of projects,” which I experienced as a layoff. I also observed what appeared to be misuse of position by some leaders, including blurred professional boundaries, preferential treatment, and expectations that went beyond normal workplace roles—at times resembling personal-assistant-style demands rather than professional conduct. Surprisingly, I also noticed inconsistent “policies” applied differently to different individuals. In some cases, it felt like the rules changed depending on who you were. When leadership became aware that someone was related to another employee in the organization, it sometimes felt like that person was singled out or targeted rather than treated objectively. Overall, these practices—whether through inconsistent treatment, perceived power misuse, or favoritism—undermine trust, damage workplace culture, and raise serious concerns about fairness and professionalism.

See reviews by: Helpful|Rating|Date|All