A company with great potential, but still struggling to align growth with culture - Anonymous Employee First Factory Employee Review

1. Promotions and raises are possible, but the process has often lacked structure and transparency. In the past, employees who didn’t explicitly ask for a promotion were frequently overlooked — regardless of performance. This created an uneven playing field where assertiveness was rewarded more than merit. This seems to be improving now with the introduction of middle management, but the long-term effects of this pattern are still felt. 2. Even when promotions are granted, they tend to come with pressure: employees are reminded that a higher salary means a higher client rate, which may make them harder to assign. Growth is often framed as a burden, not a success. This creates anxiety around career progression and discourages employees from advocating for themselves. 3. Prior to the creation of a middle layer of managers, developers were managed directly by upper leadership. During that time, decisions about promotions, assignments, or even feedback often felt inconsistent and based more on perception or personality than performance. 4. Several employees who rolled off a project have been told — directly or indirectly — that it might be best for them to start looking elsewhere. While technically the company helps with reassignment, the language used in those moments has sometimes made employees feel pressured to quit instead of being supported through transition. This is not only demoralizing but possibly illegal depending on jurisdiction. 5. Layoffs have occurred without any internal communication from management. Entire groups of employees have been let go, and their absence only became apparent when Slack accounts were deactivated or teams quietly shrank. A lack of transparency in such critical moments erodes trust and fuels anxiety among remaining staff. 6. The use of verbal and written warnings has been inconsistent and, in some cases, excessive. Employees have received formal-sounding “verbal” warnings accompanied by written follow-ups for minor client complaints. There appears to be no standardized process, which leaves room for arbitrary decisions and creates a culture of fear rather than improvement. 7. Employee experience varies drastically depending on the client. Some clients provide great environments, clear communication, and stability. Others lack structure, are high-pressure, or demand constant change. The company’s culture is not strong enough internally to compensate for weak or toxic client cultures, which makes the employee experience unpredictable. 8. A good example of poor internal communication and trust erosion is a financial benefit that the company promoted for years — a promise to honor a ₡500 per dollar rate if the exchange rate dropped below that level. It was highlighted as a major perk on their website and in recruiting conversations. When the dollar actually dropped, the benefit quietly disappeared. Only after repeated questions was it vaguely addressed in a company town hall. This left many feeling misled and reinforced the perception that negative decisions are made quietly and reactively. 9. The company does not currently have a dedicated Human Resources or legal department focused on employee relations or conflict resolution. The team commonly referred to as “HR” primarily focuses on recruitment, which is a valuable function but does not serve as an independent resource for addressing internal concerns. As a result, employees with serious workplace issues — such as harassment, ethical conflicts, or discrimination — may find themselves without a clear or neutral path to raise those concerns. In some cases, employees have reported experiencing or witnessing problematic behavior, including harassment and bias, that was not formally addressed or investigated. The absence of a formal escalation framework can contribute to a perception that certain behaviors are overlooked or deprioritized. In particularly discouraging cases, individuals involved in serious misconduct were later recognized or rewarded, which further undermines trust in the company’s ability to protect its people.