Pros
1. Coworkers are mostly great, for now (read on). 2. Working with nonprofits feels good. 3. The company makes pretty good investments in systems, tools. 4. Aside from the CEO, the C-suite is pretty competent and reasonable.
Cons
1. Salary is the big one, and it’s well below market. Here are some things that they claim help constitute “competitive compensation”: a. Volunteer days — other companies just call this PTO, and many have unlimited. b. Donation allowances — if salary was competitive, we could donate our own money that wouldn’t double as a company tax write-off and marketing. c. Remote work - plenty of employers doing this, and some even offer a stipend for WFH (Bloomerang does not). d. Mission (the work we do does serve nonprofits) - cool, but the nonprofits pay their bill with dollars just like every other business. e. Culture - but they are doing little to retain the employees who ARE the culture. Speaking of which... 2. Leadership is doing the bare minimum to thank, value, and retain employees, especially now that the leverage in the labor market has shifted back to the employer. The new CEO in response to complaints has explicitly said “You know, we’re not doing layoffs like all the other tech companies,” and “You’re not going to influence a company position through feedback,” and “If you don’t like it, leave.” Which leads me to… 3. The new CEO is quick to be defensive, combative, and shut down conversations. I’ve seen him interrupt people impatiently, and misinterpret or ignore hard data that didn’t align with his opinion and narrative. In one company meeting, he called himself “dad,” the employees “children,” then proceeded to chastise those who were fairly questioning pay transparency and the aforementioned below-market salaries. 4. Many teams have no plan for career growth. As a result, turnover is high. When leadership is comfortable letting established talent walk out the door because it’s easy to find backfills, it makes our jobs harder because we lose institutional knowledge and experience. 5. Management seems to be trending towards micromanagement, but YMMV. 6. In many public spaces (even here on Glassdoor), the company trumpets its devotion to diversity, equity, and inclusion. Many of its nonprofit customers expect and require that, and the prior regime did genuinely care about it. However, now it’s mostly lip-service, and little action is taken by leadership. The almost exclusively white cis het company doesn’t have diversity hiring goals, which would be bad enough if they didn’t talk so much about the importance of diversity. There’s an employee-organized committee for DEI, but we seldom hear anything from them outside of hosting a webinar every now and then, and it doesn’t seem like leadership meets with or really listens to them. If they did, they might have told the CEO that giving a talk about the importance of International Women’s Day while standing in front of a framed, wall-hung picture of renowned feminist James Bond, sends mixed messages. 7. They closed the office in Nashville, the location with the second highest concentration of employees, and have only toyed with the idea of a coworking space. That is, unless you're on the Sales team, who have their own secret coworking space deal that isn't available to other teams. 8. A few negative Glassdoor reviews have popped up since the new CEO joined, so they’re now requesting that we leave reviews here. They would say that’s so that candidates aren’t turned off by a negative minority, but skeptics might say it’s to dilute the negative reviews with ones that are more likely to be positive, since they’re no longer 100% voluntary. 9. In response to this, they’ll likely say thanks for the feedback and please reach out to the people team. The people team, by the way, has undergone a mass exodus, and the new one being formed is just an extension of the leadership of the company, which I've described above.
