Pros
Strong immediate team, talented technical peers, and meaningful enterprise technology challenges. I worked here for 16 years, and the best part of the job was consistently the people closest to the work. My direct team and direct leadership were supportive, capable, and genuinely cared.
Cons
The last six years were very different from the first ten. Senior leadership alignment has been a persistent issue, with unclear ownership, overlapping initiatives, conflicting architecture direction, and organizational tension that often flows down to delivery teams.
Growth opportunities did not feel transparent. I was in grade for approximately four years despite increasing responsibility, and at least one promotion opportunity felt predetermined rather than genuinely open to internal candidates.
Compensation also became a factor. Raises did not keep pace with inflation or responsibility, full target bonuses were not achieved, benefits costs increased, and retirement contribution value declined.
The biggest issue was the gap between architecture titles and actual authority. Platform and Azure architects were often not asked to define problems, evaluate options, or design solutions. Instead, decisions were frequently shaped elsewhere by vendors, consultants, or senior leadership, and internal teams were asked to implement or adapt them. That is closer to senior engineering than architecture.
When internal teams raised concerns about governance, security, supportability, or long-term architecture standards, those concerns could be treated as roadblocks rather than responsible technical stewardship.
