company has organizational challenges - Anonymous employee Ultragenyx Employee Review

1.0
Sep 3, 2014
Anonymous employee
Recommend
CEO approval
Business Outlook

Pros

i think there are good and fun people in the lower and middle ranks of various departments, including regulatory, clinical operations and CMC. everyone is making very good money from our stock options. the company was more than generous with the grants. good snacks and flexible work.

Cons

Our clinical group is in disarray. one of our leaders left and he was holding together the group and driving and supporting many of the projects. he was good at protecting us in the lower ranks from office politics and a great manager. many people in this company do not like each other. more leadership and functional heads need training on treating employees well. us lower level employees need to be engaged more by sr. mgmt. hierarchy here is more like a big company even though we are less than 100. most employees staying for the stock options. blantant favoritism to previous biomarin employees.

Explore other reviews about Ultragenyx

5.0
May 12, 2026
Recommend
CEO approval
Business Outlook

Pros

Great place with great people who are all pulling toward a common goal of bringing therapies to market that will change people's lives

Cons

For a small company, decisions can take a while to make because everyone wants to be involved, and most people in centralized roles work across all of the different brands within the company.

avatar
Ultragenyx Response
1mo
Thank you for your review and thoughtful feedback. We’re proud of the passion our teams bring to advancing therapies for patients, and we appreciate you sharing your perspective on how we work together. We’re glad to have you with us!
3.0
Jul 18, 2026
Recommend
CEO approval
Business Outlook

Pros

Good benefits and generally reasonable work-life balance.

Cons

In my experience, the organization had many layers of leadership (many VPs, Sr Directors and Directors), unclear decision-making authority, and frequently changing priorities, which sometimes slowed progress and weakened accountability. Considerable time was devoted to meetings, presentations, and strategy, but these activities did not always translate into measurable scientific outcomes. Hands-on scientists often appeared to have limited influence over technical decisions. Leadership also seemed to favor established hypotheses, outsourcing, and new biology-focused pilot studies over investing in innovative platform technologies that could address multiple diseases. Alternative perspectives and technical concerns did not always receive sufficient consideration. Career advancement appeared more accessible to highly visible employees with strong networking and presentation skills than to those contributing primarily through laboratory and technical work. While the benefits and work-life balance were positive, I would have valued clearer priorities, greater scientific openness, and stronger support for hands-on contributors.

See reviews by: Helpful|Rating|Date|All