Pros
Remote work, good people, opportunity to gain experience outside your field.
Cons
I've been in the industry for many years, working both internally and as a consultant across multiple sectors. This is by far the worst company I’ve worked for. If I had to summarize Fullsteam in one word, it would be: “Vultures.” I agree with many of the other reviews here because the same patterns keep repeating: poor leadership, constant restructuring, lack of direction, below-market pay, toxic politics, overworked employees, and leadership that only seems to care about short-term profits and protecting their own pockets. At its core, Fullsteam is an M&A company that acquires businesses without truly understanding how to integrate or manage them properly. The result is complete organizational chaos. There’s no clear direction, constant reshuffling of leadership and business units, unclear responsibilities, poor communication, and an environment where teams are expected to somehow “figure it out” while being understaffed and unsupported. I originally joined because a C-level executive wanted to expand the team and invest in improving the company long term. He was genuinely intelligent and actually had a vision for improving the company structurally, operationally, legally, and from a security perspective. However, after only a few months, he was let go because his direction wasn’t generating immediate profits for leadership — even though what he was building would have benefited the company significantly in the long run. That’s when I realized what kind of company this really was. Soon after, the entire team — including myself — was terminated. These were smart, hardworking people carrying an enormous amount of responsibility and keeping critical operations afloat despite how disorganized the company already was. Leadership decided it was better to eliminate full-time employees and even outsourced contractors who were already being paid dirt cheap despite producing quality work. Why? Because none of it immediately boosted short-term numbers. After the layoffs, the workload was dumped onto a tiny remaining team that was already working 50–60 hour weeks. This seemed to be a recurring pattern across the company: small teams constantly overloaded while corporate continued piling on more responsibilities without proper support, training, compensation, or bandwidth. What’s even more ironic is that leadership aggressively cuts labor costs through layoffs while completely ignoring one of their biggest expenses: enterprise tooling and vendor contracts. As an engineer, it was honestly impressive seeing how many enterprise tools they had for such a relatively small company — more than some much larger corporations. But the costs must easily be hundreds of thousands per quarter. Instead of optimizing tooling costs, finding alternatives, automating processes, or properly utilizing the cheaper outsourced labor they already hired, they would rather preserve those vendor relationships and continue cutting employees instead. Whether it’s ego, politics, or executive relationships, I honestly don’t know. Management support was also extremely weak. Most managers seemed more focused on surviving internal politics and dealing with uncooperative business units than actually supporting their teams. In many cases, senior employees and leads were left to absorb the pressure themselves. One small mistake could become massively overblown, and leadership had a habit of publicly calling people out in meetings instead of fostering healthy communication and accountability. The company constantly claims to encourage learning, growth, experimentation, and “making mistakes,” but in reality, employees become afraid to speak up because of how leadership reacts. It creates a toxic culture where people stay quiet to avoid becoming targets, which obviously makes communication and operational problems even worse. There’s also very little real ownership or influence at the senior level. Ideas get shot down, delayed indefinitely, or buried in bureaucracy. Compensation is significantly below market, benefits are poor, and the health insurance is honestly terrible. PTO is technically “unlimited,” but you absolutely get judged for actually using it beyond a reasonable amount. No paid maternity leave in 2026 is also pretty insane for a company trying to present itself as modern and growing. Another major issue is turnover. Leadership changes constantly, communication around those changes is poor, and there’s very little stability. Ironically, the only reason there’s “career growth” is because managers and employees leave so frequently for better opportunities elsewhere. During the interview process, recruiters described Fullsteam as stable, profitable, relaxed, and free of politics because of its diversified business model. In reality, it was the complete opposite. The environment was unstable, heavily political, reactive, and driven almost entirely by short-term financial thinking. Honestly, I believe many people at the company — including managers and leads — only joined because they had previously been laid off elsewhere and this was the best option available in a rough job market. That was my situation too. I genuinely don’t know why someone would voluntarily leave a larger, more stable company with better compensation and benefits to join Fullsteam unless they absolutely had to. My advice: avoid this company unless you are extremely desperate for a job, which is understandable in today’s market. If you already have a stable role elsewhere, stay where you are. If you have another offer besides Fullsteam, take the other offer. If Fullsteam is your only option after being laid off, then take it temporarily, gain experience, keep your resume updated, and continue interviewing elsewhere as soon as possible.