Pros

Nice physical plant in a beautiful part of California, co-workers are basically good people (though caught up in a bad system that encourages backstabbing), free lunch, onsite exercise room.

Cons

Senior executives and department heads "manage" by reacting to CEO's spur-of-the-moment and frequently unrealistic demands. They don't say "no" to him because that's a sure way to lose your job. Actual work is then pushed down the org chart and any questions about what needs to be done are seen as insubordination, so line employees are frequently in the dark about specific requirements for a deliverable. A big fire drill ensues, then the CEO doesn't like what is presented and the employees are marked as "failures" and senior management throws them under the bus to keep their own jobs.

Long-term employees, in addition to be agile about avoiding visible work, tend to be cynical and prone to lying and blame-shifting to cover their own tails. Turnover is relatively high due to arbitrary ranking of 10 percent of employees as "under performers" twice a year. In other words, if there are 10 people in your group, 1 of you has to be designated as an under performer. You will get no raise and will be laid off in the the next round of frequent "house cleanings".

If you go to work there, try to avoid getting "promoted" to management. You have no authority, as the CEO micromanages everything, yet you are held account for producing results he can't clearly define until he sees what you've delivered -- which he won't like. The next step after "promotion" is out the door -- my group has had six managers in four years!

QAD is an OK starting place or an interim job, but not as a long term place to build a career. Those who stay develop something like "battered wife" syndrome and believe they have no options but to continue to remain in an abusive system. Also, very little of what is done here conforms to software industry standards, so you'll develop some bad work habits if you hang around too long.

Advice to Senior Management

Get the CEO out of day-to-day involvement in the work of line employees. If he can't be focused on "strategic" issues (getting actual new customers instead of going to the same well over and over might be nice), then at least restrain him. Get rid of the fearful sycophants reporting directly to the CEO and bring in proven software professionals who can bring some standards and stability (relatively speaking) to a chaotic, homegrown process. Drop the ridiculous 10 percent are lousy employees ranking system -- the company is just not big enough to do this type of thing fairly. Start treating the intelligent people you hire as assets to be developed and not as obstacles to fulfilling the CEO's ill-defined wishes who need to be fired. Start rewarding risk and initiative.