Pros
The industry is interesting, and many of the employees are very capable people doing their best in a difficult environment. In theory, this could be a strong organization. In practice, it is consistently held back by the people at the top. When competent teams cannot succeed despite effort and experience, the problem is not the staff.
Cons
Just about everything. This place lives on the hype of it's product and creates a massive facade of what it's like to actually work there. Terrible c-level leadership, doesn't matter what comes after the C, they all are incredible difficult people. And I'm fairly certain they all hate each other, and would stabe each other in the back in heart beat if they were given the opportunity. One of the c-suites talks behind everyone's back in that company, including her own personal assistant. So, right there you can't trust any of them.
They hold a daily SCRUM meeting that none of the employees get anything out of, it's a giant waste of time. But it's an opportunity for executive leadership to show their face and feel important. It's just really hard to make that happen when the c-suites never have anything original to say. It's always "let me build off what this person says." (The actual leaders of the company)
Commission? Forget it. This company looks for every reason to not pay their employees.
Projects are launched with poor planning and unclear ownership. When they inevitably struggle, blame is reassigned rather than accepted. I observed a high-impact initiative collapse due to decisions made well above the operational level, yet the responsibility was quietly shifted elsewhere. When leadership avoids accountability, it signals that results matter less than protecting ego. And leadership will always make the dumbest, worst possible decisions they could make.
There is constant talk about tight budgets, yet spending decisions frequently contradict that message. Teams are told to cut necessary expenses while leadership approves costly initiatives that lack direction or measurable return. I watched essential operational resources denied, only to see funds allocated impulsively elsewhere. When financial standards depend on who is asking, it is not strategy...it's favoritism. Every employee loves when their bosses playing favoritism right?
Independent thought is discouraged. Questioning flawed decisions or pointing out obvious risks is treated as disloyalty rather than professionalism. On more than one occasion, legitimate concerns were raised, dismissed, and later proven correct. So, if you don't mind being a robot, this is the place for you.
Performance standards are uneven, if they even exist. Expectations shift depending on convenience, and employment decisions can feel less about performance and more about controlling the narrative. I have seen structural mistakes reframed as individual shortcomings to avoid admitting leadership missteps. When leaders protect themselves first, everyone else becomes expendable. But they also have a hard time protecting women, because somebody can just S.H. someone else, but the usual Ge/stapo that shows up to fire people for the wrong reasons, they're no where to be found when when it comes to protecting women.
There is frequent messaging about culture and employee appreciation, but those themes disappear when accountability becomes uncomfortable. Any positive gesture feels performative. When appreciation is conditional and accountability is selective, trust is impossible. When Mr. "I had orders" is the person who is supposed to protect the employees, who can you trust?
This company has opportunity, talent, and market demand. What it lacks is steady, competent leadership. When the same bad decisions happen repeatedly, it is no longer circumstance, it's character. And the people at the top have zero. No one is happy to work here. All of the employees are miserable but that does not matter to them.
I DO NOT recommend working here unless you're desperate and don't care how you're treated. This is not a company that cares for their employees.