Pros
The company does a strong job marketing itself — both externally and internally. Leadership promotes a “family culture” and invests in visible morale efforts such as office events, branded merchandise, and office remodels. There are talented employees who work extremely hard and genuinely care about their work and clients.
Cons
Only giving one star because I have to. In practice, the culture often felt performative rather than authentic. During a year described as financially difficult, employees were told there would be no raises due to budget constraints. At the same time, leadership’s compensation structures and financial arrangements appeared unaffected. That contrast created understandable frustration and damaged trust.
A recent remodel and discussion of new office furniture further highlighted inconsistencies. While upgrades were publicized, not all employees were treated equally in those improvements. The selective nature of these benefits contributed to concerns about favoritism rather than unity.
As client losses occurred, cost-cutting measures followed. Long-term, dedicated employees with strong performance records were included in layoffs. While workforce reductions can be necessary, the execution matters. Communicating layoffs through a brief Teams meeting — rather than in person — felt impersonal and out of alignment with the “family” narrative that had been emphasized for years.
Over time, HR leadership had a noticeable impact on the workplace dynamic. Rather than consistently serving as a neutral and supportive resource for all employees, the function at times appeared to operate inconsistently, with support and responsiveness varying depending on the individual involved. This perception of favoritism, combined with increased involvement in employees’ personal matters and inconsistent communication, contributed to an environment that felt uncomfortable and lacking in trust.