Lacks structure, leadership hiring was informal and biased and not based on qualifications which ruined the culture
Pros
1.Owners are decent people 2.Good benefits 3.Cool brand concept 4. Owners continuously work to improve HR practices and company in general
Cons
When I was there: 1. As company grew quickly, HR hiring practices were biased and not based on meritocracy. Most new leadership hires did not align with owners "inclusive" nor 'be the best' mindset. A manager once said " I just want my pay check" and left early, while I was trying to put all my effort on a project. Even temporary assistants did not met minimum requirements (qualifications/not even migratory!) which can end up in tons of abandoned work, fixes causing longer days than what they already were. These facts were hidden for owners not to see 2. Culture got ruined by insecure new hires playing politics, forming social rings/coalitions , some created conflicts 3.HR employees evaluation system was based on "who said it" not on objective system nor KPIs. Employees voice is not respected equally but on who they like more. 4. No professional development, minimal internal movements to find where employees perform better. HR preferred to let go "problem" employees 5. Long hours, low pay in specific teams depending on whether leader knew what he/she was doing