With the talent mentioned above, there is also a lot of dead weight. Too much middle management, many with little to no experience who aren't good, but have the right alliances. Politics weigh very heavily in certain departments. Overall, it's a very status quo place and I would often avoid telling people where I worked out of embarrassment because the website is such a fragmented and outdated experience.
I mention ROWE above in the Pros. HR has embraced it, some departments have embraced it, but many in management (both middle and upper) have not. Something to consider if it's a deciding factor in taking a position here or not. Many who have embraced ROWE as it was taught aren't looked upon favorably.
Touching upon the openness to new methodologies, it's much like a child at Christmas. Excited because something is new and fresh, then it's quickly discarded for whatever the next big thing is. It's not only impossible to keep up and stay enthusiastic. It ends up being a big waste of time and money. Pick something good and live with it. let it evolve for your specific uses.
To the point of my review title, Edmunds is a very "design by committee" environment. It is also very heavily driven by the product team and VPs. It felt like every opportunity to make positive change has been cut short, then there's a 180 degree pivot. When you pivot that many times, you obviously don't get very far.
There are also a number of executives that you find yourself wondering "how on earth did they get this job?" One, who will remain anonymous, was fired from their last job and endured a mutiny at their previous job because their team was so fed up with poor management. This person isn't doing any better by their employees at Edmunds, but is considered some kind of thought leader amongst their peers. Go figure.
