Poor and toxic management - Senior Manager Ultragenyx Employee Review

2.0
Feb 18, 2025
Recommend
CEO approval
Business Outlook

Pros

Company has good reputation and cited as a Best Place to Work. Work was good and challenging.

Cons

Manager was condescending and not supportive. Very unrealistic expectations but provided no clear guidance. When asked what was needed to achieve the goal in mind, the answer was always "I Don't Know". Always very critical and never gave any positive feedback even if progress was being made without his much needed guidance. Hated being in the office and having meetings with this manager. Toxic environment.

avatar
Ultragenyx Response
1y
Thank you for sharing your thoughts. We’re pleased to hear that you found your work both rewarding and challenging. We do not tolerate a toxic environment and, while you are no longer with us, we welcome any additional feedback about your experience at EmployeeRelations@ultragenyx.com. We take all feedback seriously and hope to hear from you. Wishing you the best in your future career endeavors!

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