Pros
Coworkers are great people to work with.
Cons
The new CEO came in with bold, so-called “strategic” decisions that were implemented without proper planning or consideration for the current staffing realities. These decisions had a significant and negative impact on many employees, who were then expected to absorb the consequences without additional support. Staffing was already a critical issue—and yet it was completely overlooked when these initiatives were rolled out. As CEO, it's expected that he would understand the operational implications of such choices. Ignoring them reflects either a lack of experience or a disregard for how these moves would burden the existing team. A major example was the introduction of OKRs. While they may sound promising in theory, they require a level of synchronized execution that simply isn't realistic. For OKRs to work effectively, the organization would need to operate like a hive mind—every individual perfectly aligned and aware of everyone else's priorities and methods. We’re not machines; we're human beings with finite capacity. The OKR model, in this case, is impractical and outdated. In meetings, the CEO repeatedly expresses how thrilled he is to be on this “journey” with us. Yet when legitimate concerns are raised—such as teams being severely understaffed, employees stretched far beyond capacity, and service quality suffering—the only response is: “Just get it done.” What’s more troubling is that the problems created by leadership’s poor decisions are handed off to employees to resolve. Then, those same issues are factored into performance reviews—placing blame and pressure on the very people trying to hold things together. Despite claims that everything we do is “for the customer,” the reality is painfully clear: it’s all about revenue, and ultimately, top brass bonuses. The result is a workforce that is burned out, stressed, and pushed to unsustainable limits.