Pros
The team consists of great, hands-on colleagues who work together towards a common goal. The schedule is relatively flexible, and there is no micromanagement during day-to-day operations, as it often feels less impactful. However, management tends to be more involved in situations that benefit their own positions. There are also some benefits available, such as discounts.
Cons
There is a serious issue with management at all levels. Those with authority over employees often misuse their power, stifling any attempts to improve or make progress. Communication throughout the company is severely lacking, and transparency is virtually nonexistent. There is a strong sense of manipulation, and management shows little accountability for mistakes or willingness to change. Bonuses are exclusively kept by management, whether at the top or middle levels. Gaslighting and stealing of ideas have become routine. The professionalism and managerial skills are lacking, with many managers being disconnected from both the business and the teams they oversee. There is no effort made to optimize processes or recognize the skills and strengths of employees. Around 90% of current managers are interlinked, protecting each other and creating a barrier between the real decision-makers and the teams responsible for executing changes or driving influence. Leadership is sorely lacking, with a tight-knit group moving upwards or sideways in the company, receiving significant pay increases without accountability. Leadership frequently asks for input through anonymous surveys, but these surveys are not truly anonymous, as direct contact is made with teams who submit suggestions or criticism. Even when feedback is provided, no action is taken to implement change. In the past three years, the HR department has been dissolved four times, with new HR members brought in, most of whom are appointed directly by leadership rather than through a competitive process. Only key HR members are retained in their positions, and they respond directly to the leadership team. The entire structure is in disarray and needs to be restructured from the top down. While individual projects and lower-level work continue to function despite these challenges, the overall organization is struggling. NGA exemplifies the issue of having too many leaders and not enough workers. I have been asked multiple times in 2025 by leadership if I would take charge of NGA. Each time I found this question oddly timed, and it made me reflect that I would not take on that responsibility. If it were up to me, I would dissolve it or restructure it to its core from the top down. I have observed highly paid leadership members spending excessive amounts of time in unproductive meetings or engaging in behavior that undermines staff morale. For example, one leader spent an hour and a half in a self-organized meeting, only to leave afterward. The same leader later yelled at another employee over an irrelevant matter and repeatedly spoke down to staff members in an internal forum, belittling them over trivial topics. This kind of behavior is unacceptable, especially when the issue at hand is a basic, poorly organized business presentation. This company seems to be a place for friends of leadership, where outsiders are paid below market rates, with promised pay increases that never materialize. After 12-16 months of employment, employees may see their pay bands adjusted back to what they were at the start. Leadership then complains about high employee turnover. This is not a place where you can build a long-term career, unless you are part of the management clique that is disconnected from reality. If you try to implement change or improve the company, you will be demonized and pushed out. The priority is maintaining the status quo and protecting the inner circle.