Pros
Good pay and good travel expenses
Cons
Skewb runs on a buddy system, and almost every other problem flows from that. Proximity to senior leadership and to a small circle of insiders determines who gets the interesting work, who gets recognition, who gets included in the conversations that actually matter, and who gets protected when things go wrong. If you are inside that circle, you hear the unofficial requests, the gossip, and the early signals about where things are heading, and you can position yourself accordingly. If you are outside it, you are effectively invisible regardless of input. Contributions are quietly absorbed by people closer to leadership, recognition flows upward and sideways within the in-group, and those outside it are left without acknowledgement, and without inclusion. Office politics and personal agendas have become more visible rather than less, and speculation and rumour now fill the space that should be occupied by clear communication and transparent decision-making. Taken together, the unevenly distributed insider knowledge and the public dismissal of mental health and pace concerns function as attacks on the people doing the steady, unglamorous work. The in-group benefits from advance information, informal influence, and the protection of leadership; those outside it are left to absorb the consequences of decisions they had no part in, and are then characterised as struggling because they aren't good enough rather than because the system is rigged against them.
The culture around wellbeing reinforces this. There is an unspoken expectation to be available beyond reasonable hours. Mental health is treated as a personal performance issue rather than a signal that something in the system is wrong — concerns are seen as a sign of individual inadequacy rather than something to be taken seriously or examined for root causes. Token gestures are held up as evidence of a strategy, but they do nothing to address the underlying causes — decisions, commitments, and deadlines set at the top with little meaningful consultation, and a persistent gap between what leadership promises and what proves realistic in practice. The result is a recurring pattern of commitments that cannot realistically be met, leaving the company looking unprepared and unprofessional externally, while internally creating pressure that those further from leadership are expected to absorb without complaint. Leadership seems genuinely unaware of, or uninterested in, the toll any of this takes.
In a recent all-company briefing, a senior member of the exec team described Glassdoor reviews as a "cockshy" method of giving feedback — a comment visible in the Q&A long enough for a large portion of the company to see it before it was deleted. It captures the prevailing attitude towards employee feedback better than any review could: dismissive, contemptuous, and entirely uninterested in what the dismissal itself signals.
HR is not a route to resolution. The function is widely perceived as existing to protect the company and senior leadership rather than to support employees, and raising concerns rarely results in meaningful action.
The result is a company where a small inner circle thrives and everyone else is gradually worn down, professionally sidelined, excluded from the conversations that matter, and told, when they struggle, that the problem is them.