Pros
It is a high-energy environment that is conducive for those in their early stage careers. Emphasis is on taking a bias for action and experimentation so you will get a chance to learn and dabble in a lot of technologies and gain experience with a lot of technology tools along the way. High-growth environment: Not uncommon to see people move from early-stage careers (Engineer/Sr. Engineer) to manager, to Director/Sr. Director in a very short span, 4 years or less in some cases. But whether they are adequately positioned to succeed in those roles, or if the scope of those responsibilities are relatable to other companies is questionable. Title inflation is a sad reality.
Cons
Inexperience galore. Too many folks accelerated into leadership roles without the necessary experience or training in how to succeed in those roles, leading to a high-churn environment. Factionalism/clique mindset - another side effect of the inexperience. Teams weren't very inclusive and often reinforcing the biases and opinions of people they were familiar with. Given that the teams were geo-diverse, this just added another layer of unwanted complication. There are some good team players, but there are an equally good number of those that aren't the easiest to get along with. The bias for action and experimentation came at the expense of doing due diligence. There was a clear disconnect between the engineering and product teams - much of it had to do with the inability of the erstwhile leadership to work in harmony. Product and features decided on by engineering teams with little consultation with the actual users or customers. Many teams working on same/similar features leading to duplicated efforts.; those that did not make it to production ended up in the scrap pile. Lack of transparency - many crucial decisions made without factoring in real data, or in many cases by ignoring facts, to suit a narrative.