GIC reviews

Very political, top management heavy with many VPs and few working level staff, poor career progression. A lot of strategic or big plans but little prioritisation or actual drive in running the projects. A lot of reorganisation happens very frequently for no rhyme or reason, not communicated to staff either. Some are generally nice but most is for show and not genuine. Colleagues do not go for lunch together and split up, remaining in their cliques. Terrible for long term advancement and upskilling and personal growth. Highly dependent on managing upwards, if the bosses like you, rather than being a good employee or manager to subordinates. Direct contractors are welcome to join the events but otherwise have very little chance of conversion so company is only good as a stepping stone.

The Technology Group (TG) suffers from deep structural and cultural issues that make it a very frustrating place to work. First, senior leadership lacks clear direction. The organization goes through frequent and extreme reorganizations that create instability across teams. Entire groups are reshuffled regularly, and waves of new SVPs and MDs are hired who come in with unrealistic targets and workloads to prove themselves quickly. Engineers often end up executing initiatives that exist mainly to satisfy leadership optics rather than meaningful technical or business outcomes, and many people get pushed into roles that do not align with their career ambitions. Second, office politics play an outsized role in hiring and promotions. Advancement often appears tied more to relationships and perception than merit. It is not uncommon to see new senior leaders bring in people they previously worked with, even when their ability to lead in the new environment is questionable. This creates a perception that loyalty networks matter more than performance. Third, there is very little psychological safety. The culture leans heavily toward blame when things go wrong. Teams and vendors may make mistakes as happens in any complex engineering environment but the accountability often flows downward in a way that discourages transparency and experimentation. This results in risk-averse behavior and defensive management. Fourth, processes especially around cybersecurity and architecture are extremely inefficient. The architecture review and IT risk assessment processes feel designed to block progress rather than enable it. The default stance is that everything is disallowed unless proven otherwise, which leads to excessive friction, long approval cycles, and frustration for engineers trying to deliver solutions. At the same time, managers often push unrealistic timelines and projects that appear more focused on internal visibility than real business value. Finally, the organization talks constantly about prioritization, yet little actually changes. Many initiatives continue to compete for attention simultaneously without clear trade-offs. Fundamentally, these issues stem from misaligned incentives. Performance is evaluated on short-term annual outcomes even though the organization positions itself as a long-term investor. This encourages short-term signaling, constant reorganizations, and leadership initiatives that optimize for yearly reviews rather than sustainable engineering and business impact.