Company is declining. Now, clients, employees, and products suffer. - Anonymous employee Workinman Interactive Employee Review

As written above, the workers here are great people. Most all of the issues seem to come from the leadership. I wish they would work to make positive changes for the employees, but it feels like they create problems instead of solving them. Your experience may vary depending on the projects you're on. If you choose to work here, hold your boundaries tight and ensure that your health always comes first. The company seems to only pay lip service to things like work-life balance or health on paper. They say they have a "four-day work week", but you may be working 6 or 7 days, the difference is that some of those days don't have meetings and you can wake up a bit later (to then work later). Crunch culture is sometimes held as a sign of "glory" or "hustle" (by the leadership, not the employees doing the extra work). A day or two here and there is fine I guess, but long or even mid-term crunch is not a "necessary evil." It's a sign of unsustainability and poorly managed/allocated resources, it results in poor products, and it gets people out sick. And here, this severe crunch feels quite normal. This leads into the next issue of the pay. Your job here probably will not pay well; a lot of work (in my experience) is done after hours. If you do not set hard limits for yourself, a good chunk of your projects will likely be done for free, on your time. To the upper management: us employees can grind and put in the extra work, but you gotta pay us for our labor if so much of it is off the clock. It's also worth noting that those pay ranges submitted here on Glassdoor look suspicious. In addition to being extremely high, I've never heard of anyone getting either profit sharing or stock, so I think those pay ranges, stocks, and bonuses are most likely from the upper management. Leadership now seems adamant on keeping secrets from both the employees and clients, from things like basic policies to employee terminations (which is pretty important to know if you're on a project with someone who's been canned). Many projects feel almost deliberately engineered to fail by higher-ups (being denied proper resources and time), and after so many of these kinds of projects, it's demoralizing to push the payload on these, whether the project is unpresentable or knowing it won't ever see the light of day past clients. It's fair to say that these decisions make the end product suffer in quality, and clients will start to notice it and get scared off, preventing repeat business. This is also your warning that if you dislike crypto/NFT stuff, you might want to stay away, as the leadership is all-in on the fad and you could expect to work on one of these kinds of projects. You should also take care to never say anything that could be construed as mildly negative about this stuff either; that will hurt upper management's feelings and you may become their next target. Of course, it's only the upper management who's into this stuff, as almost everyone outside of that club despises and sees it for what it truly is. Even if you are hired for a particular skill, such as Unity, you cannot expect to get work using that skill. You might be put on their in-house legacy codebases, which is fine for a couple projects, but not so fine when no one else in the industry has even heard of that technology and they're looking for hard experience in more widely-used technologies. It's difficult to grow your career from here when you inevitably get sacked. The seemingly-new tradition of throwing out employees after a year or two is also unsustainable for the company at large; unless you were grandfathered in as a legacy employee from previous management, you'll likely get burned out then thrown out within a couple years max, so you won't grow from junior to mid to senior, and they have to keep hiring, onboarding, then throwing out green employees like tissues. Employees, former or current, are not usually willing to say this stuff out loud. The act of making suggestions, even with the most delicate touch, is always seen as a personal attack on upper management. We want this company to succeed; that's why we make suggestions and offer solutions to issues. Constructive criticism comes from a desire for improvement and we're willing to do our part and more. But if we're the smoke alarms, then we aren't heard until the proverbial house is burned down. We're only assured, "we're fine, you're fine, everything's fine." Shouldn't CEOs and C-suite boys be able to take a bit of criticism?