I've never left a Glassdoor review before, because the relative anonymity opens the door to something like character assassination. That is a genuine concern. However, my experience w/Better Markets was so surreal and professionally damaging that I feel obligated to offer a heads-up to others who may consider applying there. Also, I communicated these concerns directly, so there are no surprises here.
My concerns about Better Markets basically mirror those of the previous employee who left a library of bitter observations in preceding reviews. I have my own specific bad experiences, but I can't waste hours of my life on this site. You can find their review(s) by scrolling back. They seem to have had it worse than me, which is pretty remarkable.
Meanwhile, you will note a large - not to say, eyebrow-raisingly large - number of sunshine-y positive reviews here that provide, ahem, balance. I imagine some will follow what I have to say, as well as a rebuttal trying to discredit, by playing fast-and-loose with facts, these observations.
Cons:
- Absolute power is concentrated in the hands of the boss; there are no senior staff playing any meaningful mitigating role. This is partly a function of the CEO's personality, and partly a function of having essentially one funder. That combination works against accountability. Predictably, the power is used arbitrarily and self-servingly.
- The work environment is toxic. The good people are just trying to survive; the bad people are busy backbiting, flattering the CEO, and obstructing. Trying to get vital meetings set, or access to critical documents, or determine what the workflow is to get anything done, or define roles on a project - all nightmares. The excuse offered for these obstacles at Better Markets is that it's a "fast-paced, high-energy" environment. Nonsense. I've worked in several newsrooms where my teams fielded breaking news at breakneck speed. We had to meet multiple, drop-dead deadlines every single day. What passes for "fast-paced, high-energy" here is the refusal to create a working structure beyond the CEO's whims.
- On that note, the work environment is the logical outcome of the CEO's management style, which is to resist structures or processes that would limit his power. Without those structures of accountability and professionalism, there's a vacuum that's filled by bullying, flattering, and resistance to accountability. What matters is vying for the CEO's favor.
- The biggest con is, regrettably, the personality of the CEO. He is volatile, irritable, and - this in the words of a colleague who applied for my job but sensibly didn't take it - "contentious." Everything you say - no matter how cautiously or diplomatically you phrase it - is subject to responses that range from dismissive to defensive to bizarrely accusatory. I've lived and worked in several countries in Asia and the Middle East, and I've had to overcome plenty of communications barriers through politeness, listening attentively, and measuring my speech. I've never encountered anything like this. It's bizarre.
To sum it up, there's just no professionalism at Better Markets. Get enmeshed in it, and you'll find that things that are hallmarks of professionalism in healthy firms - teamwork, accountability, training, well-defined roles, workflows - are either absent or considered signs of dysfunction. If you want to be treated badly and burned for the very skills and traits that other employers will reward you for, you have come to the right place.
