Toxic culture driven by politics - Software Engineer loveholidays Employee Review

Fast-paced culture that rewards adaptability to changing and sometimes implicit priorities

- There is a strong perception that success depends heavily on aligning closely with management rather than on merit, which can discourage open feedback and independent thinking. - In my experience, certain personality types tend to do better here—particularly those who are highly social, politically aware, and comfortable navigating informal influence networks. - Middle management can be inconsistent and, at times, dismissive. For example, during a 1:1 with a skip-level manager, I was interrupted repeatedly and saw clear disengagement (e.g., yawning), which contrasted with their more attentive behaviour in public settings. - Some managers expect employees to “read the room” rather than clearly communicating expectations. When asking for feedback or guidance on career progression, responses are often vague and lack actionable direction. - There are instances where workplace dynamics feel more political than performance-driven, with some individuals advancing despite behaviours that negatively impact team culture. - The CTO appears to have limited visible involvement in technical discussions or product-level decision-making. From an engineering perspective, it is unclear how technical direction is shaped beyond high-level presentations. - A principal engineer leads a small, informal group that heavily influences tooling and technology decisions. These decisions are often presented as directives, with limited opportunity for broader discussion, and concerns raised are not always addressed transparently. - I observed a case where a colleague’s probation period was extended without clear justification, which ultimately led to their departure. Situations like this raise concerns about consistency and fairness in performance management. Additionally, some team leads appear to progress despite limited leadership capability, potentially due to tenure and alignment with senior stakeholders.

You do get great, talented individuals passing through. Most of whom are cast out or undervalued though. The CEO is an approachable person and surprisingly not amongst the most unbearable people at the company.

Unless you fit their narrow mould, you’re marked from day one—managed out under the illusion of “performance” so they don’t have to confront their own limitations. Show any vulnerability or difference and you won’t get support, you’ll get the bare minimum until they can justify pushing you out. It’s a culture that rewards conformity over competence—where underqualified leaders and their loyal echo chamber coast by, protected by a system designed for them. Anyone who doesn’t blend in, or worse, exposes that fragility, becomes a problem to be removed rather than a person to be developed. And while they’d never say it out loud, the pattern is obvious: people from underrepresented or marginalised backgrounds—whether that’s race, gender, disability, or neurodiversity—tend to be hit first and hardest. Not because they’re less capable, but because they don’t fit the template this environment was built to favour. I’ve seen it firsthand, and I’m far from the only one. Ironically, the same people who talk about “high standards” are often the least capable—just the most comfortable in a system that shields them. If you don’t fit that system, don’t expect fairness or a genuine shot—just a quiet, deliberate path to the exit.