Pros
The only consistently positive aspect of working here was my immediate team. My manager and teammates were exceptional — thoughtful, hardworking, and deeply supportive despite increasingly chaotic and demoralizing conditions. They carried far more than their fair share and deserved far better leadership than they were given.
Cons
When I joined 3.5 years ago, Mission was a genuinely great place to work. Today, it is an unrecognizable shell of what it once was. There is no meaningful path for growth. Promotions are not driven by performance, impact, or consistently strong reviews. The same small group of people are repeatedly elevated, while high performers are expected to continue delivering indefinitely without advancement. Watching peers rise rapidly while others with equally strong (or stronger) performance remain stagnant sends a clear message about what — and who — is actually valued. Leadership is extraordinarily disconnected from reality. Tone-deaf remarks during serious moments are common, and employee concerns are often met with generic, templated responses that feel automated rather than thoughtful. There is a consistent lack of ownership, accountability, and basic empathy. The People organization is a critical failure point. Leadership within this function demonstrates poor execution, weak delivery, and a startling lack of employee advocacy. Outside of Talent Acquisition, there is little evidence of strategic thinking or care for the human impact of decisions. Trust in People leadership is extremely low, and employees feel managed at rather than supported. For a function meant to champion employees, the gap between title and reality is glaring. The acquisition process made leadership’s priorities unmistakably clear. While executive leadership received multi-million-dollar payouts, entire countries of employees were left in the dark, treated as expendable, and given minimal transparency or empathy during an incredibly destabilizing period. The disregard shown to global workforces was deeply disappointing and difficult to reconcile with any stated company values. Now, the company is laying off nearly half of its workforce. The scale of talent, institutional knowledge, and trust being lost is staggering. Replacing this experience will be virtually impossible, and remaining teams are expected to absorb the fallout without adequate resourcing, clarity, or support. Burnout is rampant. Teams operate in constant firefighting mode due to poor planning, frequent priority shifts, and headcount reductions without corresponding scope reduction. Feedback is routinely requested but rarely acted upon, reinforcing the perception that employee voice is performative rather than meaningful.
