Pros
This review is specific to the SF Beyond office. While each of the additional offices at Beyond surely have their own issues to address with respect to overarching vision and the influence of leadership from executive/partner management, one clear positive at Beyond is that each office does assume a bit of the GM's disposition and tenor, and that is evident in much of the work that each of those offices develops. All the same, I'd be remiss if not suggesting that some of the themes discussed below can be found at each of the offices in North America.
Cons
There are essentially two Beyond SF stories. 1) What you'd expect to hear from your typical Interviewing contingent, comprised of HR and Managers, or at your weekly Friday meeting. That story reads: Beyond is growing exponentially. They're winning a bunch of new and exciting accounts, cannot keep up with the pace, and opportunities are abundant for individual growth and advancement. They'll note they're a cohesive unit, everyone is friends and truly enjoys each other and the work they do. The work, they'll say, reflects the "design and technology ideas company" aspirations they've been implementing across their studio for years. Also, sprinkle in that the agency is based in a few very desirable cities and is expanding to others to accommodate the continued growth. The future is rife with opportunity. 2) What employees are experiencing, which reads: — There is no studio vision. — There is no management structure — The work is production-based — Promises made to employees are not kept — There is significant confusion about individual roles and those of managers On the surface alone, the agency appears to be winning and losing “big” work and talent at seemingly equal rates, but is currently riding the coattails (both in finance and in spirit) of a new relationship that may be in larger disarray (albeit as secretly as possible) than the studio writ large. That said, there appears to be no ownership of significant recent losses in accounts and talent, which has been something of an exodus swept behind a curtain that surely deserves to be addressed in earnest rather than politically. It stands to reason that losing big accounts and great talent has a story other than "the time had come" or “we were preparing to part ways with him/her anyways” (a not-too-uncommon refrain of late), or the more egregious denial through statistics drummed up from years ago. This is potentially all the more scary and compounded a bit considering that many feel that their teams and/or their direct managers and/or their position at the agency are on a magic carpet ride, where confusion or unclear expectations (at best) or the requirement for suspension of disbelief is a prerequisite to life at Bynd, where questioning anything agency or position related (be that your manager, your salary, etc) is most apt to receive a politician’s response, or a promise of future redress, or an immediate band aid rather than the sound attention it deserves. A significant share of employees have had promises made with them, either through the GM or surrogates, as if a backdoor deal to keep things copacetic replaces clear expectations, review processes and merited salary augmentation/reward. The net effect is that a web of these promises and missteps have multiple employees searching for solid ground that they should otherwise be able to expect as a precondition of employment, not as a favor lauded down from the ambiguous processes and procedures that govern employment, to say nothing of the many other facets of their work. The work itself is veiled in a similar ambiguity, lacking the honest assessment of what it is: creative services at the whim of marketing clients. By and large, it is not “technology ideas” nor strategic design. While there is absolutely NOTHING wrong with that type of work, it is not the story sold to new hires nor what many current staff desire to do or get the support to explore. The trick here is that that decision is calculated because it’s producing the highest margin for the agency due to the costing models that ensure that answering to the beck and call of the client 40 hours a week is far more profitable than the exploratory “aspirational” work that’s positioned as a broader focus. In place of “vision” for the work, and in concert with the pretense of doing “aspirational” work, the agency has hired a string of consultants over the previous year, some with a purpose that appears dubious at best. To what end or effect will be seen, though the objectives for their work seem rather unclear, and the immediate result is broad confusion amongst the employees who have had touch points with them. Unfortunately, as with many things within this studio, even the semblance of what could otherwise look like sound advice appears muddled and messy. After several quarters of consultation, the only tangible result has been that no one truly understands what’s going on or where the studio is truly headed, other than eagerly chasing dollars. At the end of the day, this all stems from a lack of vision and absence of structuralized professional management that could otherwise lead the SF office forward. If not addressed in short order, the atrophy of culture, quality and client relationships will surely continue to place this office, if not Beyond as a whole, in peril. At the sake of appearing disgruntled rather than expressing the results of the prolonged disappointment that I experienced, I post this message knowing that I’ve only skimmed the surface of significant issues facing my former colleagues, but that anyone reading this might do well to heed.