Kalderos Reviews

I am sharing my experience to help others make an informed decision before joining this organization. During my early tenure, the work environment was collaborative, professional, and staffed by experienced individuals with deep knowledge of the 340B program. That culture shifted dramatically following a leadership change. After a new CEO was appointed, there was a rapid restructuring of executive leadership, including the replacement of much of the C-suite with individuals from the CEO’s prior network. Over time, this pattern extended throughout the organization. Several hires appeared to be based on personal relationships rather than relevant experience, including individuals placed into leadership roles without prior background in the 340B space. Existing employees with subject-matter expertise were expected to train these new hires, despite growing concerns about long-term role stability. Opportunities for advancement and professional development became increasingly limited for those outside of leadership’s inner circle. Project assignments, conference attendance, and visibility were disproportionately given to select individuals, creating a perception of favoritism and inequity. Despite strong performance and measurable contributions, advancement pathways felt effectively closed. The work environment became increasingly stressful and, at times, adversarial. In my case, concerns arose regarding the accuracy of feedback about my performance. This experience, combined with the broader workplace dynamics, had a significant impact on my health and well-being. Additionally, it became difficult to raise concerns through internal channels. The HR function also appeared closely aligned with the new leadership team, which made it challenging to feel that concerns would be reviewed objectively. From an operational standpoint, there were also concerns about how the company’s product and capabilities were represented externally compared to internal realities. I would encourage prospective employees to ask detailed questions about organizational structure, leadership changes, team stability, and how performance is evaluated. Understanding these dynamics upfront may help avoid difficult experiences later on. Additional cons listed below: * Toxic culture within the CSM team * Significant leadership turnover replaced experienced executives with personal networks *Hiring of unqualified individuals into key roles * Perceived favoritism in promotions, project assignments, and conference opportunities * Experienced employees used to train new hires without advancement opportunities * High-stress environment with negative impact on employee well-being * Limited confidence in internal escalation channel

My experience at this company has raised serious concerns about its leadership structure, internal culture, and long-term sustainability. Here’s why: *Layoffs, hiring practices, and company growth* Over the course of about 16 months, the company conducted four separate rounds of layoffs. These layoffs often followed delays in product launches that employees had originally been hired to support. This cycle of hiring ahead of projected growth and then reducing staff when timelines shifted creates a constant sense of instability across teams. Despite leadership frequently framing the company as being in a strong growth phase, the internal reality often feels very different. Ongoing layoffs, shifting priorities, delayed launches, and increasing customer churn suggest a company struggling to maintain momentum rather than one experiencing sustained growth. Many employees have begun to quietly question the company’s long-term trajectory, and a lot of top talent has recently left, as the internal focus has increasingly shifted from building sustainable growth to reacting to immediate operational challenges. This disconnect between external messaging and internal conditions creates confusion and frustration among employees. *Management culture* At the same time, leadership hiring practices have appeared heavily concentrated within personal networks. Many executives brought in former colleagues as directors or VPs, who then hired people from their own circles and promoted them. Over time this has created a noticeable “inner circle” dynamic where certain employees appear insulated from layoffs and promoted quickly, while others - notably the top performers - are let go. Performance metrics that could help create transparency are not always consistently shared. As a result, it is often unclear how layoff decisions are being made, and many employees feel those decisions are influenced more by internal relationships than performance. Management culture further contributes to the environment. Employees are frequently discouraged from raising concerns, offering feedback, or questioning decisions, because they have seen former employees who did so be let go. The safest approach for many is simply staying quiet and avoiding attention. Managers often speak poorly about their direct reports to other members of that same team, leaving you questioning whether the same is being done about you. Those team members are often let go in the next round of layoffs. *Product and operational challenges* The product itself has faced ongoing challenges. Data reliability issues, persistent bugs, and limited functionality have been common concerns. In some cases, clients were sold capabilities or reporting features that did not exist, leaving internal teams to build manual workarounds or rely on spreadsheets to deliver on those commitments. For a technology company, the reliance on manual workflows is surprising. Additionally, priorities, KPIs, and targets frequently shift, sometimes depending on who is asked or when. This creates a constant “fire drill” environment where teams are reacting rather than executing against a clear strategy. *Company culture and client relationships* Despite positioning itself as a partner to the 340B organizations it serves, leadership often speaks about those partners in ways that suggest distrust. This creates tension for employees whose role is to support those clients while hearing leadership question their motives internally. Overall, the combination of repeated layoffs, shifting priorities, leadership favoritism, customer churn, and unresolved product issues make it difficult to feel confident in the company’s direction. For a company that positions itself as bringing “transparency and trust” to a complex healthcare ecosystem, the internal lack of transparency around strategy, layoffs, and product direction is particularly striking. Many talented people have worked here and seemed to genuinely want the company to succeed, which makes the ongoing organizational and product challenges all the more frustrating. Prospective employees should carefully evaluate whether this environment aligns with the level of stability and transparency they expect in a workplace.