employer cover photo
employer logo
employer logo

Teachstone Training

Is this your company?

Good people and a place that will give you a chance - Product Manager Teachstone Training Employee Review

4.0
12 Apr 2022
Recommend
CEO approval
Business outlook

Pros

-The people who do the work at Teachstone are phenomenal colleagues. They should be trusted with more -Remote work is great if you like it -Plenty of time off (though policy is antiquated) -The mission is great though overly broad -The company isn't going anywhere anytime soon as long as they stay written into Federal law

Cons

-Leadership not able to describe their vision so instead micromanages every aspect of the business -Organization relies too much on "the mission" to get and retain talent. Way behind on salary so it takes forever to fill open positions and recent turnover has been a whirlwind -No focus or appetite for saying "no" makes the organization over extended, over worked, and unable to deliver quality work "on-time". -Leadership not only speaks in a hyperbolic fashion but also acts in that way - everything is important, everything is urgent, everything is life or death, everything is amazing, everything is wonderful, everything is ... -Room for growth is role specific. Managers tend to get regular promotions, otherwise you have to switch teams or apply for new roles in the organization -Leadership not on the same page even on things as basic as what's in the budget (e.g. there were entire positions promised by one leader that weren't budgeted for by another) -Sales organization is a revolving door -Prioritizes profits over people but call themselves a B Corporation

Explore other reviews about Teachstone Training

5.0
18 June 2025
Recommend
CEO approval
Business outlook

Pros

Working with teachers and administrators on the importance of interactions in the learning setting

Cons

Depending on time of year, might be almost too much travel

1.0
1 Mar 2026
Anonymous employee
Recommend
CEO approval
Business outlook

Pros

Meaningful mission focused on improving early childhood education. Many individual contributors are thoughtful, capable, and genuinely care about the impact of the work. Remote flexibility exists in theory.

Cons

During my time there, the company went through multiple rounds of layoffs and a CEO transition. That level of volatility created ongoing uncertainty and a sense that the organization was operating reactively rather than from a clear, stable strategy. Teams were regularly adjusting to structural changes, which made it difficult to feel secure or supported long-term. Workloads were not distributed equitably across the team. Some employees appeared to carry significantly heavier and more complex portfolios than others. When team members left, their full responsibilities were reassigned without compensation adjustments, title changes, or structured transition support. Expectations remained the same even as scope expanded. My calendar was consistently filled with client meetings and repetitive internal meeting I was required to attend throughout the day while also requiring high volumes of communication and account management responsibilities. When speaking to other colleagues in the same role, they reported they only had a couple meetings per week. That combination often resulted in after-hours work just to keep up. Capacity concerns were raised, and while they were acknowledged, meaningful workload redistribution or expectation adjustments were limited. There was also a lack of consistent documentation and established internal systems. Account histories, workflows, and processes were often underdeveloped or fragmented. Employees were expected to formalize or build processes while simultaneously managing active portfolios, without clearly protected time or organizational investment in scalable infrastructure. It frequently felt like being asked to build systems in real time while still carrying full performance expectations. Management approaches at times emphasized performance comparison to other employees and high levels of monitoring rather than collaborative problem-solving around structural issues. Instead of addressing workload imbalances at a systemic level, the focus could shift toward individual output and oversight. Over time, this eroded trust and contributed to burnout.

3
See reviews by: Helpful|Rating|Date|All