Needs help at the C level, questionable IT practices.
Pros
Pay level good, benefits good, new offices, workers are professional and very talented. Many could excel tremendously both financially and achieve broadened application of skills elsewhere. Culture and values great at worker level.
Cons
Poor communication from upper management down. Rampant politics and in-fighting that clouds judgement and prevents the establishment of a clear strategic direction. Lack of accountability at higher management levels. Financial decisions regarding investments in technology refresh, advances and maintenance are puzzling. Seems to be toxicity in and between middle and upper management. Expectations set by upper management appear abusive towards workers in some cases, but is cleverly crafted to provide plausible deniability. Closer examination and analysis in the absence of fear is very enlightening. Decisions by upper management levels seldom consider the human elements when those decisions will impact workers -- comes across as a total disregard for the individual's time and is quite disrespectful. In some cases decisions stand in stark contrast to the work/life balance touted by management. Stock value is flat. Bonuses are awarded in stock and the stock value often tanks when options vest, yet have been taxed at higher value before vesting. Likely an unfortunate coincidence which works out in the wash, but value often does not match the original intended bonus percentage. Poorly, if at all, prepared for DR, Business Continuity, or Crisis Management. As a result the business is at substantial risk and this has been demonstrated recently during a malware/ransomware attack. BOD should be asking hard and serious questions as should investors with influence, regarding IT security practices, and who is accountable for the lack there of, and then take appropriate action up to an including dismissal. Questionable Information and IT Security Procedures, and/or lack thereof. Ask yourself this before considering joining Nuance. If an organization is hit by a virus/malware/ransomeware, such as Petya, a WannaCry variant, and the recommendation to patch with an update that was available and widely known of at least two months before the virus hit, who is accountable for leaving systems unprotected and vulnerable thus allowing a $2 Billion Dollar business to be taken to its knees in a matter of minutes? What about the lack of routine patching of user systems and servers within prod, dev and otherwise? Is it the CEO, CIO or CISO? It is not the individual contributors. The fact that a company would be hit by such an event is not a matter of bad luck that can be attributed to "it could happen to anyone". It is a matter of not being prepared -- all despite the international news, and the IT community in general, making the risks as well as the fix well known to the world well beforehand. The company is paying the price now and then some. Unfortunately customers have suffered as a result.
