Information Technology (IT) Architect Reviews - Page 3

Run. Run for all holy hell. This company has zero correlation between projects performed and pay. If they aren't paying more than 20% premium over their competition, don't even consider talking to them. Politics over common sense will dictate your projects. No CTO has stayed with this company for more than 2 years, and that's longer than you should consider them.

GM is a good employer. The efforts of the unions has radiated across HR policy in general, with very good benefits. Health insurance options are not the best I've seen. I'd give those about 3 stars, but they're all there nowadays, so that's good (vision since 2018). Pension arrangements get 5 stars. It probably doesn't get better than this, unless you're a C-level executive. There are two GM portions of 401K contribution. The regular matching is done no matter what. An additional percentage is added from day one, but not released to you until you've been here several years, I think it's 3. GM reorganizes all the time. So try not to get used to your chair. That's a piece of advice you'll hear a lot here. I consider GM a "social corporation": it doesn't matter what you know, but whom you know. This organization thrives on "tribal knowledge", meaning that wise men sit around a camp fire (we use skype rather than smoke signals though) and discuss the matter, exchanging knowledge of intimate technical details. You won't find that wisdom in books or on the Intranet. This seems to work, but is a cultural model that you must be able to deal with. There are faster, more professional and definitely more efficient/effective ways to manage knowledge. GM is also very fragmented, split into many miniature silos or stovepipes. A side effect of this is variation in methods. Procedures, tools, the way business is done can all vary widely between silos. That makes it hard to predict what you