Synaptic (India) Reviews

1. Appraisal and performance processes felt poorly timed. Appraisal forms were rolled out shortly before a major layoff, but no reviews or follow-up discussions happened. This timing created confusion and left many employees feeling unprepared. 2. No stable long-term product direction. The product strategy changed roughly every six months, often without clear market validation. These shifts were usually followed by aggressive hiring and then large layoffs once the direction changed again. 3. Client stability appeared weak. Onboarding of new customers was limited and retaining existing clients seemed challenging. This uncertainty showed up internally through frequent changes in priorities, ownership, and scope of work. 4. Managers had very limited authority. Even basic operational decisions required senior-level approval. Managers were often expected to communicate difficult or unclear decisions without having enough context or the ability to influence outcomes. 5. Employee concerns were raised but not meaningfully addressed. Issues related to leadership and workplace behavior were escalated multiple times, but visible action was limited. Over time, this reduced trust in escalation channels and accountability. 6. Ongoing job insecurity. Layoffs happened repeatedly, which created a constant sense of uncertainty. Leadership in the Bangalore office often seemed unclear about the broader company direction, making it hard to give teams confidence about the future. 7. Constantly changing priorities. Work priorities shifted almost daily, and short-term tasks frequently replaced previously defined goals. Despite strong justifications at the start, focus rarely stayed long enough to deliver quality outcomes.

1. Appraisal forms were rolled out shortly before the layoff, which created the impression that they were used to buy time but before any reviews or discussions could happen, a mass layoff impacted almost the entire team. For many employees, this created a strong sense of distrust and made the process feel deeply misleading. 2,The product lacked a clear long-term vision and appeared to be shrinking. From an employee perspective, client retention felt weak, onboarding of new customers for Sourcing IQ seemed rare, and even retained clients appeared to have high churn. 3. Even on the company’s own platform, the growth index for the company appeared to show little to no growth 4,The senior management of the Bangalore office consistently created a toxic and inhumane environment. The behavior was not isolated or occasional — it felt repetitive and normalized over time. The tone and treatment toward employees were often demeaning and emotionally draining, making the workplace feel unsafe on a daily basis. 5.The Bangalore office atmosphere became so uncomfortable that many employees actively avoided even brief, routine interactions with certain members of senior management, including avoiding sharing a lift for just a few seconds. This level of avoidance reflects how tense, unsafe, and oppressive the environment felt for people working there. 6.Managers themselves were often not the source of the behavior, but were placed in a position where they had to deliver harsh or demoralizing messages on behalf of senior leadership. This created the impression that pressure was being applied from above while maintaining distance from its impact. Over time, this approach damaged trust, accountability, and morale. 7. It felt like these concerns raised by employees regarding workplace behavior were known at higher levels of the organization, but meaningful action was not taken. Over time, this created the impression that unhealthy leadership behavior was being tolerated rather than addressed.