"Posting here On behalf of a ex employee who was working at Fid India (as this website only allows posts from within the USA)"
I've noticed numerous comments discussing the poor quality of work from Fid India. I cannot deny that these comments are true. I am here to provide some context and background on why this situation has arisen, as there are no other forums available for this purpose. Like any disaster, it is a result of multiple small factors that have accumulated. (I was in AMT, but applies to all units probably)
Several years ago, the leaders at Fid India, made the decision to recruit top talent from better colleges in India by offering higher salaries to entry-level engineers. However, there was a slight problem with this approach. While they managed to attract some talented individuals, they also ended up with many mediocre ones. These new hires would communicate through WhatsApp and in offices, becoming demotivated when they saw their friends engaged in more rewarding work in other teams or companies. Additionally, most of these hires aspired to work on AI projects. As a result, around 90% of them quit within three years. Astonishingly, the managers, who are supposedly geniuses, have set goals to retain as many of these hires as possible. Consequently, their time is spent coddling and spoiling them, essentially encouraging them to quit after three years instead of two.
An even worse decision was made when they hired individuals with an MBA from top colleges as SL. These employees were then assigned the task of putting stories in Jira and communicating with managers in the USA, which made them unhappy. Furthermore, many of them were not interested in technical work to begin with. Their friends in other financial companies enjoyed legitimate financial roles, which made them even more dissatisfied. To keep them content, management provided them with unofficial pseudo-managerial roles to oversee engineers and involved them in non-work initiatives.
Who was affected by all of this? The individuals who were actually doing the work for which Fid was being paid, of course! Engineers who had been with Fid for five to ten years, senior software engineers, and lead software engineers were ignored, mistreated, and many of them left the company. To make matters worse, the company introduced the 10-grade system in India, which merged the roles of senior software engineers and lead software engineers. Top engineers either quit or transitioned to people management roles. So, what did the top leadership do? They probably concluded that project deliverables were not worth the effort and decided to focus solely on innovation with new hires, interns, and SL. And what is a typical Fid India innovation, you may ask? Well, it involves devising solutions for nonexistent problems, incorporating AI/ML, and adding an aesthetically pleasing angular screen for demonstrations.
The leadership at Fid India consists entirely of non-technical individuals or those who have forgotten their technical knowledge or lack the capability to understand technology. Consequently, they gravitate towards non-work initiatives on the domain side, forming close bonds with employees in non-work initiatives. This further alienates and demotivates the engineers. In response, some engineers invest a significant amount of time obtaining domain certifications to gain recognition. This explains why you often see many engineers in India pursuing things like CFA certifications.
Now, let's discuss the promotion culture at Fid India. Initially, the management "over-promotes" a select few top performers (those consistently receiving excellent ratings) but then attempts to "under-promote" others to balance it out. However, this approach fails because no one wants horizontal growth when others are receiving vertical promotions. A culture is created where there is pressure to get promoted every couple of years. To retain employees, they eventually end up promoting everyone within a year or two, rendering the roles meaningless. This cycle repeats continuously. As a result, in India, most engineers hold principal positions, and the percentage of directors is exceptionally high. This, in turn, negatively affects quality since roles have lost their significance. I remember a time when there was only one lead developer or manager per team, and that person was responsible for ensuring a good product. Now, with everyone in the team holding the title of principal engineer, management claims that everyone is responsible, but in reality, it means that no one is accountable. Engineers know that doing their work will not lead to promotions, so they spend most of their time distracted by other tasks.
Management also assumes that delivery would happen automatically, leading them to focus solely on non-work-related items such as forums, events, initiatives, and innovations. During performance reviews, they would deceive each other by claiming their teams had good automation and practices. Additionally, they always felt insecure and believed they needed to prove themselves to management through means other than their actual work. Quality work does not happen by default; it requires careful supervision and dedication, but unfortunately, there is no interest in this from the top.
The management is aware that the users of their low-quality products, such as traders, PMs, analysts, and quants, have no voice. The CIOs/Others who hold the actual power, are primarily concerned with meeting deadlines. As long as the products are delivered on time, they receive accolades and promotions. Consequently, they exert enormous pressure on the already overloaded engineers to deliver quickly, making quality work nearly impossible. The management pretends to care about quality to protect themselves, but they have no genuine interest in it. They utilize SL to exert pressure on their behalf. When the CIOs and business leaders visit India, they marvel at the superficial aspects presented to them and subsequently write positive posts on LinkedIn. Everyone appears to be happy, except for the actual users, but most of them are likely unable to voice their concerns due to D&I policies.