A culture defined by favoritism, instability, and leadership that undermines its own people
Pros
Occasional collaboration across partner teams offered brief reminders of how a functional workplace is supposed to operate.
Cons
My experience with this company revealed a culture where psychological safety is absent and toxic leadership practices are normalized. Gaslighting, selective communication, inconsistent expectations, and retaliatory micromanagement were routine across multiple teams. The environment rewards those who align with specific personalities and sidelines anyone who raises reasonable questions or attempts to advocate for clarity or fairness. Favoritism influences nearly every aspect of work here — from who receives support, to who is granted flexibility, to who is allowed to speak openly without consequences. Benefits like “unlimited PTO” are applied unevenly and largely at the discretion of individual managers. Scheduling accommodations follow the same pattern: certain employees are accommodated without question, while others are pressured to adjust constantly, with little regard for fairness or consistency. Communication from leadership lacks transparency, leaving employees uncertain about direction, priorities, and organizational changes. During merger-related discussions, I observed dehumanizing language used to describe employees and their roles — a clear indicator of how leadership views its workforce. Hostile or unprofessional comments from leaders were met with silence, reinforcing the message that this behavior is acceptable. Turnover is high and rising. Many talented employees have left, and more continue to follow. The instability this creates is felt throughout the organization and directly affects morale, productivity, and trust. If you are looking for an environment where leadership is accountable, communication is consistent, and employees are treated with respect, this is not that environment.
