Pros
The people that work at the company are generally kind, smart, and willing to put in the work to make the company better. The office is in downtown Raleigh.
Cons
The company has gone downhill in a lot of ways. First, they keep hiring young (read cheap) talent that is pulling the quality of work down, making the quality of clients decline as well. GFD used to receive very many awards and produce viral-worthy content, but not anymore. This is specifically linked to the talent they attract and the types of work those individuals are able to create. They also go through these periods of repaid growth, bringing in a ton of green, so-so talent, but then lay off more seasoned employees when the business takes a hit because their salaries are higher. This obviously gets rid of people who can actually generate good work at the rapid clip that Go Fish demands, perpetuating the trend of mid-tier deliverable production. It’s a cheap model, but it’s not a sustainable one. Second, they “play favorites” when giving out promotions. There are so many great employees at the company that deserve to have a long runway. But, instead of giving promotions, raises, and praise equitably, they focus on the same several people and move them up the ladder. These people are talented, of course, but when a company’s leadership very obviously invests in specific people that they just like better, it creates a bad culture among the people who want to advance in their careers there, but can’t. When employees ask for promotions, though, they are met with shifting goal posts and, eventually, meetings where they have to pitch why they deserve something that they’ve earned twice over. Third, the process of implementing performance plans doesn’t make any sense. Because they don’t have a formal HR department or competent HR employee, they don’t have a formal process for improving performance or giving feedback. To be fair, they implemented a system that would help with taking in feedback/recognition, but that’s not a replacement for HR when intervention is needed. With this system (and before it was implemented), anyone can provide any sort of feedback, even if it’s petty or lacking context, and leadership will take it at face value. This leaves the employee in a tough spot because if they defend themselves, they’re not taking accountability, or if they don’t, they’re stuck in a situation that may not be fair to them. In some instances, you may not have received much or any negative feedback at all prior to being put on a performance plan–and then you’re put in an even worse position. If you’re put on a performance plan, you have 30 days to correct your behavior or you’re fired. Speaking of accountability, instead of empowering employees to provide critiques in the moment to their colleagues, they instead are more empowered to go to managers or input feedback into the new collection system. So, how is anyone expected to get better or feel secure in their job if this is the bar that’s set? Fourth, as with a lot of agencies, they value the grind over slowing down and building out processes. Most everyone is executing deliverables to some degree, even mid-high management, so that leaves very little room to develop processes that will make everyone’s lives easier. But you’re also expected to carve time out of your busy work schedule to create process docs that might need to completely change the next year. All of these reasons, and more, contribute to a borderline toxic culture that makes talented people go through the motions of being underpaid (despite being told that leadership bases salaries on “market data”) and gaslit into thinking that they can’t find a better job elsewhere. How could they think that when they are constantly worked to the bone, under a microscope, and aren’t at least compensated or recognized fairly for any of it? This culture props you up to be worn down and pessimistic about your own potential to succeed, and it’s disheartening to say the very least.