Healthy culture that focuses on patients - Director Ultragenyx Employee Review

5.0
Jan 10, 2025
Recommend
CEO approval
Business Outlook

Pros

Patient-driven focus, collaborative working environment, opportunity to expand your responsibilities and try new things, fostering growth and development

Cons

Stock price is pretty low considering impressive pipeline, some senior role leaders are more focused on pretending to be capable than solving real challenges

avatar
Ultragenyx Response
1y
Thank you for your review and being on our team! Your words mean a lot – it sounds like our values are coming through strong in your experience working here. We look forward to continuing to work on our industry-leading pipeline with you. If you have any specific feedback you would like to provide our Employe Relations team about leadership, we hope you will reach out via email to EmployeeRelations@ultragenyx.com. Thank you once again!

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