Pros
The people are genuinely talented, thoughtful, and committed. Flexibility is one of the main reasons employees stay longer than they should.
Cons
Unfortunately, the review from November 2012 is still very accurate today.
There is a significant gap between what this organization teaches externally and how it operates internally.
Pay issues were frequent, including late or missed paychecks. More concerning were problems with 401(k) contributions—employee funds were withheld from paychecks without being timely deposited. This created stress and a serious erosion of trust.
Training is minimal to nonexistent. Employees are expected to juggle multiple, often unrelated roles simultaneously. Job titles frequently reflect four or more functions, resulting in workloads so fragmented that sustained excellence is unrealistic.
Processes are outdated, unclear, and inefficient. Communication lacks consistency and transparency, and there is no clear long-term strategy. Decision-making power is highly centralized with the CEO, who does not handle feedback well. Speaking up about concerns is discouraged, and dissent is often met with defensiveness rather than dialogue.
A common internal sentiment was that leadership could “find a way to put others down while lifting others up,” creating a culture of fear instead of psychological safety. Turnover has exceeded 50% in recent years, which speaks for itself.
Most employees remain in survival mode, choosing flexibility and job security over challenging what feels wrong. Given the nature of the work this company claims to do, this ultimately becomes a compromise of integrity.