Pros
Work from home Some very kind and interesting colleagues
Cons
The Goldmind Brand Team lacked experienced people managers. Several people were given ACD titles with limited experience managing designers or understanding how to scale design systems, resulting in inconsistent direction and uneven support for our team. Leadership on the Golmind Brand Team operated as a tight clique, and project assignments were heavily influenced by favoritism rather than experience or skill set. The CD was uninvolved in providing any design direction to the team, which is highly unusual. Hiring decisions seemed relationship-driven rather than merit-based. CDs and ACDs on this team didn't meaningfully assess individual skill sets before assigning work. Instead, they openly let personal favoritism drive project allocation. In all the time I was there, no one once spoke with me to review my experience or skill set. I was routinely given junior-level production work and micromanaged frequently. The team's design leaders showed limited vision and lacked experience when it came to building efficient systems or scalable processes. There were no consistent workflows, the "shared libraries" were disparate and difficult to access, and there was a lack of centralized design assets in place, which created unnecessary friction and duplicated effort. The ACDs in charge of our team’s libraries did not use the most efficient software to build out asset libraries, causing a lot of wasted time, effort, and confusion for everyone. Their design direction was either 1) nonexistent 2) inexperienced or 3) vague. Mistakes were frequent when it was provided. There was no accountability after providing unclear direction, instead they routinely blamed the designers. The project managers on this team are highly proficient, professional, and a real asset to the team. But from a design perspective, projects were poorly managed, with inexperienced creative direction, or worse: they were micro-managed. One ACD chronically overstepped and redid the designer's job for them, instead of providing clear guidance or rationale for her feedback. It wasn't helpful or professional when their unclear guidance was followed with criticism when designers attempted to interpret or clarify the direction. Even after proactively outlining project next steps and seeking clarity when direction was absent, there was no formal follow-up during my tenure. Despite having many years of leadership and strategic design experience beyond some of my direct supervisors, I was consistently and intentionally assigned production-level tasks well beneath my skill set. There were no pathways to contribute at a strategic level, even after proactively outlining and suggesting process improvements. High-visibility projects were routinely assigned among a small group, most often the younger team members, while more experienced designers were bypassed or given low-level work. It created an environment where growth and contribution felt secondary to internal politics and favoritism. The "culture" felt surface-level and had an insincere veneer, which immediately fell away if you tried to address any concerns. Asking questions or offering differing perspectives quickly put you out of favor with Goldmind Brand Team's leadership. The overall dynamic felt competitive, exclusionary, and somewhat Mean Girls. The person I reported to was highly passive aggressive and pretended to be everyone's friend, but behind the scenes, she was quietly edging people out that she felt threatened by, or that she didn't deem "cool" enough to be in her preferred inner circle. While the Goldmind Brand Team appeared to prioritize youth over experience, the broader agency team promoted offshore expansion, with ongoing discussions about reducing domestic remote roles, which put many people on edge. Contractors were treated as third-rate and disposable, with no integration into long-term planning or development. There was zero opportunity for meaningful growth. Brand leadership’s taste in photography and layout felt dated and derivative, and creative direction did not reflect the standards one would expect from a top financial institution. The new brand identity relies heavily on an inexplicable number of pastel color variations, and presents more like a 1980s clothing company than a bank. Designers should also know in advance that none of the (mediocore) work can be shared externally in portfolios, which limits career leverage. Overall, it's not an environment for designers seeking structured growth, professional leadership, or work they can feel proud to showcase. Advancement pathways are unavailable, and opportunities for strategic contributions are severely limited or nonexistent. Senior-level experience is not appropriately leveraged. The social culture feels coerced and insincere, or at best, it’s reserved for the clique favorites. I would not recommend wasting your talents in this poorly managed in-house agency if you want to do great work with experienced, talented design leaders.