I highlighted the word "some" above because I think the biggest problem I've faced while at F5 is the divide between favored and unfavored employees. I don't mean favored as in management simply preferring some employees over others, but rather more in the sense that employees will be funneled into 1 of 2 camps over time: 1) decision makers; 2) contributors with virtually no creative leeway who are expected to churn through JIRA tasks written by the decision makers. This is a consequence of the aforementioned cost-cutting; it leaves absolutely no margin for individual discretion. You either end up being entrusted with all the decisions, or you're stripped of all decision-making ability and forced to just grind through a never-ending Jira backlog that somebody else created for you. There's no room for debating the pros and cons of solutions, reprioritizing tasks mid-sprint, etc. Management swears everything on the list needed to be delivered yesterday, regardless of whether the ask even makes sense from a technical perspective. Upcoming features are "committed" publicly to customers long before low-level contributors ever hear of them, so when a requirement comes in that barely makes any sense or is going to have some unintended negative consequence, the response from management and decision makers is simply to get it done by the arbitrary deadline.
It would be one thing if these statuses were doled out based on merit or vision, but I've seen this dynamic play out with everyone from junior coders to senior principal tech leads, several of whom left or retired in part to escape the oppressive decision-making culture. Unfortunately, F5 only exacerbates the divide by celebrating the decision makers and putting them on a pedestal while mostly ignoring the contributors. This has actually been quite harmful at times when high-level decisions had significant rippling consequences to development efficiency across many teams, yet the high visibility of the decisions and the hard work of contributors absorbing the impact still resulted in excessive praise and recognition, despite there clearly being better alternatives. There is minimal accountability for bad decisions, and no recourse for contributors to mitigate their impact other than to work longer hours.
