Pros
Compensation in corporate roles is competitive—likely because it’s one of the few ways to retain talent in an otherwise toxic environment.
Cons
In my direct experience, this company fosters a toxic work environment—one that is well-known internally, yet consistently overlooked or downplayed by leadership. The CEO appears aware of the dysfunction, but rather than addressing it, the focus often seems to be on optics. Instead of meaningful cultural improvements, the company highlights paid industry awards that claim it's “innovative,” “friendly,” or a “great place to work”—titles that, to many employees, feel completely disconnected from reality. There’s also a troubling pattern of mixed messaging. Publicly, remote work is promoted as a benefit; internally, leadership expresses a desire to have everyone back in the Atlanta office. These contradictions leave employees confused and distrustful. Leadership decisions often feel misaligned with outcomes. Individuals responsible for failed strategies are promoted, while broader teams are laid off. Leaders who couldn’t execute on their own strategies are still publicly celebrated. The message this sends is disheartening: performance and accountability appear secondary to internal politics and image management. This is the kind of company that talks a lot about D&I, but the internal experience tells a different story. It's performative—and that gives real D&I work a bad reputation. It was a difficult and disappointing 5+ years chapter.
