* Company leadership regularly introduced sweeping changes that deeply affected employees' job scopes, pay structures, benefits, and work arrangements. These shifts often occurred without meaningful input from staff. For example, employees were frequently given additional responsibilities under the guise of promotions, yet salary adjustments rarely accompanied these changes. Unpaid time off was completely eliminated, labeled as overused, though this was largely due to an already insufficient PTO policy. The option to work from home, which was previously difficult to access, was also abruptly revoked based on similar assumptions of misuse.
* On several occasions, details regarding sensitive HR issues and investigations were openly discussed during company-wide meetings, even when they had no direct relevance to most of the attendees.
* Despite the presence of experienced internal professionals and external consultants, leadership consistently favored their own instincts over expert recommendations. This pattern often led to the seemingly arbitrary decisions that shaped the work environment.
* Employees with long-standing tenure but without leadership titles were often viewed as untouchable. These individuals strongly supported management’s decisions and were typically quick to dismiss, belittle, or criticize anyone who disagreed with company policies or chose to leave the organization because of them.
* As a result, the company experienced notable attrition: within five months, the workforce shrank from 25 to 11 employees. Of the 14 departures, only around four roles were replaced—two being essential for meeting existing contract obligations and two additional hires to bolster the remaining teams. At the time of my exit, only one more hire was in the pipeline.
* Although not a direct issue for everyone, the office space consistently saw low usage—typically around 35% capacity—while maintaining a substantial cost of approximately $40K per month, something management frequently pointed out.
