Pros
The role itself had meaningful scope and visibility. The company employed many talented, committed individuals. The work had the potential to be impactful with the right leadership and support.
Cons
Sustained micromanagement and a lack of trust in experienced team members. Difficulty raising concerns safely; attempts to provide feedback or ask for support were often deflected or met with criticism rather than resolution. Contractors were permitted to manage and formally evaluate full-time employees, creating misaligned incentives, unclear accountability, and an uneven power dynamic that negatively impacted trust and morale. Expectations frequently shifted due to leadership making commitments without alignment across teams, then holding individuals accountable for outcomes beyond their control. Inappropriate and unprofessional comments in team settings, including dismissive responses to health and workload concerns, harassment, insensitive remarks, and commentary that minimized age, diversity, or holidays. Poor respect for work-life boundaries, including regularly working 50+ hours per week under unclear expectations and pressure framed as “support.” Micromanagement escalated into punitive practices, such as excessive check-ins and limited flexibility during the workday. Performance reviews did not align with company values around supportive leadership, recognition, or employee development. Prolonged stress negatively impacted employee well-being, with little meaningful intervention or adjustment when concerns were raised. High team turnover during leadership tenure, including multiple senior team members leaving due to similar concerns about management culture and lack of psychological safety.
