Pros
When asked why we work at Dyson, everyone shares the same answer: People. People are the only reason employees stay at this company for so long and deal with all of the negativity - because they enjoy who they work with.
Cons
A former coworker described Dyson very aptly - "they make it impossible for people to work here." Dyson's culture is toxic from the top down - decisions are made based entirely on politics, power plays, and what the decisions makers feel like doing that day. Despite being a private company there is incredible pressure from the top leadership (and presumably ownership) to maintain unsustainable profit margins. This makes the leadership at all levels in turn make increasingly short-sighted decisions that actively harm the business and its employees in the name of short-term gains to profit margin. It is nearly impossible to do you job here - there is no investment in systems so nearly every task is manually done. There is no investment in people so when people leave (like I did) there is no backfill. The remaining employees are responsible for "picking up the slack" while the expectation remains that their current workload does not fall off. Dyson will turn you into the worst version of yourself and turns its employees against each other. Relationships between teams are fractured and every team operates with an "us versus them" mindset. On a daily basis coworkers send angry emails to each other, yell at each other on calls, and actively despise working with certain members of certain teams. It's exasperating. In the last few years Dyson's headquarters has undergone a slow yet unrelenting path to take all power and decision-making ability from the regional leadership to themselves. This quest for power has led Dyson to be in a position where the Global head of a team (based in Singapore) has the final say in making staffing decisions at a market level. In practice this means what I touched on earlier - there is no backfill when people leave. More seriously, this consolidation of power means means that Global leaders can have extremely visible bias throughout sourcing decisions and make decisions based solely on which suppliers they want to work with and the market has no choice but to accept the decision. Ethically questionable decisions like these are made by the Global team based on who yells the loudest in calls. There is a specific Global head that prefers to scream at people until they get what they want - so much so that they had to take "sensitivity" training due to the number of complaints they received. They are still employed.