Pros
I was part of the mass layoff that recently took place - a little over 100 employees, majority of which came from the corporate office, a lot of which came directly from the small communities in southern Vermont. Many of those employees took a chance moving to rural, short-on-housing-stock, HCOL with few jobs to support that COL, limited medical services available, to take a chance and work for Orvis, a brand they believed in - that at the time had not gone remote and had trouble convincing folks to make that lifestyle change. And now many employees find themselves living in (and deeply ingrained with children, etc.) what is a beautiful place that is *very* difficult to financially survive in. So, reader, take that as you will. My pro's are connected to the version of Orvis that seems to no longer exist: - Family-owned (and directed) brand dedicated to values of conservation, inclusion via internal DEI work and focused outreach in company messaging, REAL authenticity and a real love for the outdoors via fly fishing, wingshooting & connection with dogs - (Mostly) kind, authentic, smart, down-to-earth, collaboratively minded people - Although not perfect, a genuine respect for and awareness of work/life balance, support for those who chose to have families, and everyone's need to prioritize mental health - What at the time seemed to be a brand that really was looking for "culture" within the office and employees - which helped to be an incredible community of likeminded, passionate people sharing what they loved with each other as well as being very good at their jobs After quite a few years in some nasty highly-competitive, ego-driven corporate landscapes, a very welcome breath of fresh air.
Cons
My cons include: during the last few years of the company's decision making (and I know from those far more veteran to myself that they'd seen bits of this bubbling for a while, just not as extreme) nearly all the above "Pros" seemed to have gone out the window in favor of attempting to right a ship imho, all the wrong ways. Cons that were part of Orvis previously but stand out a little more given shift in management, hiring practices and decisions in the past few years: - Little to no properly communicated processes on anything - which makes work a little chaotic, but more-so makes attempting to onboard and/or train very difficult, as well as change-management for larger initiatives - Little to no actual training in most positions, which while time consuming and cumbersome - if hiring folks who handle that well, supporting them, and *listening* to their needs - can work out OK. This is one of those areas that felt like it suddenly shifted in the past few years. - Not provided structure or resources (or often, seeming to even acknowledge) employees requests for additional training, cross-training or leveling up of skills. Again, this is something that *really* starts to sting when you let over 100 people go, then often repost their jobs or very similar ones, all the while those employees are quite aware their requests for support to better themselves fell on deaf ears. - Tight community was a total positive, imho - especially when you consider the real live authentic alignment with core values of the brand. However, there was really no well-established way to have disagreements or solve conflict, which can definitely let issues linger longer than they should. - Teams were often left to their own devices, trying desperately to improve processes / outcomes / lines of communication without strategic support from upper management. Again, this is a frustrating aspect of day-to-day work and efficacy, but manageable - until entire teams are suddenly cut from the organization but the upper management that failed to provide true, impactful strategic roadmaps are still there. If you're still reading - these were a few of the teams that were most heavily impacted by the cull: - In-House Creative - Brand Marketing - PR / Comms Many of the people in these positions had been front and center parts of the legitimacy brand, and the broader fly-fishing, wingshooting, dog, outdoor inclusion & conservation world for decades. While evolution is important, and there were lots of aspects of the business that *had* to evolve and should have started their evolution *years* ago -- many of these long tenured, well-respected people were actually clamoring for those changes for a long time structurally for the business, and personally for themselves and their teams. To be frank, imho, some of the most stuck-in-their-ways, clinging-to-the-outdated, resisting change folks are still at the company, managing some of the areas that need the most change for survival.
