Pros
hybrid scheduling, WFH every other day; work is not hard, though you do need to be pretty competent to manage it and I think also have a firm sense of self beyond the office because otherwise difficult times will be extremely difficult; most of the Level 1 employees are very pleasant to work with; nice office
Cons
The company is probably just too large to operate the way it wants to, and their growth, while impressive, is just leading to more problems in the department. I think you will find here standard issues to be expected at most workplaces that have a lot of people involved in a lot of things (inefficient processes, lapses in communication, etc) but I do think this is one of the most unprofessional places I’ve ever worked in due to management’s insistence on basing most decisions on personal whims rather than on any professional performance and the apparently widespread belief that to criticize or find fault with any piece of the department or company is grounds for extreme hostility from the management team. Workload can be very intense depending on your assignment, and there is no guarantee you will receive support from your supervisors or management. Assignments are also not equal, so some employees who are lower performing have less to do while high performing employees will get more piled on their plate to make up for the difference. Your workload will also depend on the discretion of your supervisor, so if your supervisor doesn’t think super highly of you, they will leave you to languish. If they want to help you get promoted to a managerial role, they will give you more relief. Conversely, if you are hoping for advancement and your supervisor dislikes you, for whatever reason, you have no chance. If you’re a strong performer who gets a recommendation from a member of management who may not be your direct supervisor, your direct supervisor can block it purely out of spite, because you did not “get their help”, even if that supervisor is newer in their role and lacks the context to make knowledgeable recommendations or references on your abilities. For whatever reason, there is also a disturbing trend of outright dishonesty among management. When feedback is solicited about individuals for reviews, they can, at their discretion, withhold positive feedback that’s been received and instead only share negative feedback or, in most alarming cases, manufacture this negative feedback in order to limit an employee’s ability to advance. Employees are told that workplace challenges or issues they may bring up are unique to them alone and so are their problem to solve (even if a number of other people are having the same issue and also raising the same concern). Employees are told that their exact locations are always visible to management (they are not), presumably to encourage compliance with protocols for clocking in and out. Enforcement of disciplinary procedures is also extremely variable and will depend entirely on your supervisor or manager, who might cite department policy one day and then ignore the same policy, even with the same employee, the next day. Though management asks often for feedback, they are VERY resistant to any and all feedback that is not glowingly positive. Critiques, even constructive ones, are treated as insults, and supervisors and management take them very personally, to the extent that staff who raise these concerns are accused of being insubordinate and unprofessional. To point out an issue with a piece of frequently and widely-used equipment earns rebukes from management that staff is not being sufficiently grateful. Though they ask, and encourage, staff to have "best friends" at work, staff are discouraged and outright reprimanded for speaking to their coworkers about issues they are facing at work, regardless of their severity. Per management, staff should not discuss anything among themselves as minor as a dysfunctional copier to a manager who is actively hostile to their direct reports and communicates with them inappropriately. But if these concerns are instead relayed directly to management, there is not only no action taken but also the person relaying them is given warnings related to their conduct. Even if managers and supervisors admit that things, including the inappropriate behavior of supervisors or managers, is worthy of investigation, they will also make clear that no investigation will take place because the member of management fielding the complaint did not witness it personally. Human Resources participates in these conversations and cosigns this lack of accountability and the hostile workplace it creates on top of also participating in it themselves through aggressive and inappropriate communications with employees who they may encounter. If they didn’t pay people so poorly, I do believe someone would have attempted litigation by now. As far as other minor things that could be worked on: this is an extremely meeting heavy position though there really is no reason why. Meetings have to be had for every little thing. If you are a "this meeting could have been an email" person, you will not thrive here. The micromanaging is truly out of this world. When you interview, they are insistent that people are left to their own devices for the most part, because this is a position where you have a lot of freedom on how you accomplish your tasks. This is presented as a big perk of working there. But depending on your supervisor, you can and will be managed within an inch of your life. On the other hand, you may also have a supervisor who completely ignores you and who you rarely ever see. You will most likely not have your own desk even though you definitely will need one.
