3.2
52% would recommend to a friend
Dale Fox
70% approve of CEO
50% positive business outlook
Pros
ceo is nice, location is okay
Cons
disorganized, horrible management, low pay, low salary, product doesnt work, spreads lies to employees, no employee culture, no opportunity for growth, no raise or promotion,
Pros
This company started out in pretty good shape: interesting technology, niche markets to exploit and a good potential path forward. The CEO is a consummate businessman with a solid understanding of star- up companies, dealing with VC’s as well as possessing a high emotional intelligence. The fundamental problem is that this technology is rooted in materials, hardware and system engineering. This is not a core strength for the CEO and he must rely heavily on the Chief Science Officer (CSO).
Cons
The CSO is fresh out of school and his attempts to exploit this technology is sophomoric a best. He has a poor understanding of the fundamentals of triboelectricity and is ineffective at characterizing let alone optimizing this technology. His lack of experience coupled with his domineering personality has led the company down multiple, fruitless paths over the years. He would have been released years ago, except he is also a co-founder of the company. I suspect that Tribogenics will run out of cash before becoming profitable. Cool technology, poor technical guidance.
Pros
The company is a unique mix of research laboratory and production - a great place to be if you want to experience the challenges of a hardware startup firsthand. Because workers tend to be involved in multiple projects or roles, it's also a good place for those who like to multitask or diversify. The team is small so you can stand out if you perform well. The technology has great potential to affect change which makes it appealing to put in the work, although any real benefits are a long way away. Hours and benefits are not bad, and the location is very nice.
Cons
The major downfall of this company is that there is no clear direction from the executive level. Politics and in-fighting among the managers are rampant and beyond some lofty "we can change to world" rhetoric, there is no clear business plan for the long term - and if there is it is not communicated to the staff. The CEO is absentee most of the time and seems to make major decisions off the cuff without clear understanding of the implications. Time and again management declares seemingly arbitrary and unreasonable deadlines for project completion which the team fails to meet. There is no negotiation or program planning to determine a reasonable time-frame and engineering is forced to scramble to post-rationalize a plan for a set deadline. This happens so often that the concept of "deadline" is virtually meaningless to the staff. The company continues to hire experts and specialists to address very specific issues, but many of the long-term employees are either stretched too thin or not given enough to do. There is no promotion from within. There is no mentoring or career development offered. Overall the focus seems to be in the wrong place. They are scrambling to turn a profit on a technology that is still in its infancy and sacrificing resources that could be used to strengthen the technology to focus on short-sighted plans for volume production that are completely unsustainable. A hardware startup is not a get rich quick scheme. Meanwhile, the core technology team has made no discernible advancements in understanding of the science, but performance is expected to improve.
Check out your Company Bowl for anonymous work chats.