BEWARE slippery slope ahead - Avis employé Employé (anonyme) Infor

I like working at Infor. I’ve been here for roughly five years. I enjoy the work, believe in the product, and genuinely like the people I work with and for.

There has recently been a very strong “AI-first” push across the company. To be clear, I understand the value. AI absolutely can streamline operations and free people up to focus on higher-value work. Used correctly, it’s useful. The problem is that there does not appear to be a clear or consistently enforced policy around what constitutes appropriate use versus misuse or outright abuse. There should be better guidance around where AI helps productivity, where it introduces risk (especially around company information being entered into public tools), and where the line is between use and replacement of basic job responsibilities. For example, I recently had a coworker explain that they created AI automation to read and manage their emails so they rarely have to review or respond themselves, while acknowledging things are likely missed. The same person records meetings for transcripts, leaves their laptop during the call, then relies on AI afterward to summarize what happened. At a certain point, it raises a legitimate question: are we using AI to improve productivity, or are we using it to avoid participating in the job altogether? Right now, reactions internally seem split. Some employees view this as a serious abuse of the technology, while others appear fully on board with it. That disconnect alone suggests the company needs clearer expectations and policy guidance. AI should support human judgment and critical thinking. Not eliminate the need for employees to engage in their work entirely. And how does the company determine when that is being done?

A global brand with an established customer base

Infor has talented employees and recognizable products, but the organization would benefit significantly from stronger operational alignment, leadership consistency, and healthier management practices. In my experience, onboarding was minimal, priorities shifted frequently, and success often depended more on navigating internal ambiguity than executing against clearly defined goals. Team environments often felt unnecessarily negative, with meetings frequently centered around public criticism, blame-shifting, and employees being placed in difficult situations without adequate support or alignment. Cross-functional communication appeared fragmented, creating an environment where employees were expected to deliver results without always being given the tools, clarity, or organizational structure necessary to succeed. Fast-paced environments can absolutely be rewarding, but “figure it out yourself” is not a scalable leadership strategy.