Everything is a lie - Office and Facilities Manager Lessen Employee Review

1.0
Sep 9, 2025
Recommend
CEO approval
Business Outlook

Pros

The pay and benefits were good

Cons

You're forced to sell your soul to the devil and lie to the clients. NOTHING Lessen advertises or represents is true, it's all lies. This notion advertised as one of the best places to work is a smoke screen. The companies so called "Core Values" are empty and meaningless. Onboarding required ethics training but when ethics are practiced at Lessen, HR gets involved and eventually the position is terminated. The HR department is completely biased and supports the company 100%; there's only one perspective. Leadership is incompetent and disconnected. Incompetence is celebrated and rewarded, and truly talented people are terminated. When leadership is challenged the work atmosphere becomes hostile and the challenger is targeted. Most of the vendors sent to client properties are not qualified and are grossly overcharging for services. Leadership only cares about raking in the money; quality is completely overlooked. Absolutely the worst job I've ever had to endure. The CEO is a Charlatan. When a one-star rating was selected it was because there's no option for zero stars.

Explore other reviews about Lessen

5.0
Aug 4, 2025
Recommend
CEO approval
Business Outlook

Pros

Continued education and product knowledge. Remote work available

Cons

OT only offered on holiday work days

1.0
May 19, 2026
Recommend
CEO approval
Business Outlook

Pros

Employees have strong potential and are capable of delivering quality work when supported by effective leadership and clearer project direction. But unfortunately, leadership is not effective and helpful here which I’ve described below.

Cons

The Agile process needs significant improvement. Collaboration between onshore and offshore QA teams can become challenging, especially when reported issues are frequently dismissed or invalidated without proper investigation. This creates an environment where team members may feel discouraged from raising legitimate concerns. On-shore QAs become “UAT Testers” as a result. Management involvement during demos can also feel counterproductive at times. Instead of proactively identifying and mitigating project risks earlier in the process (but they are not even involved in early discussions) , concerns are sometimes raised publicly during demos, which creates unnecessary pressure rather than constructive collaboration. There is also a noticeable emphasis on release timelines over overall testing confidence and product quality. In situations where testing risks are raised, they don’t receive sufficient consideration if release goals are prioritized. When issues occur after release, accountability tends to fall heavily on QA teams despite broader project and process factors contributing to the outcome. QA documentation standards did not always appear to be applied consistently across all levels of the organization. Some leadership-level QA contributors were able to provide minimal to no testing documentation while expecting more rigorous standards from other team members. Lastly, the recurring fear of layoffs created a culture where some employees felt pressured to prioritize visibility and management approval over open communication and constructive collaboration.

1
See reviews by: Helpful|Rating|Date|All