General Assembly reviews

Very poorly organized, reinventing the wheel, locations and departments completely out of sync. so when people come in with terrific ideas and the ability to execute them in any meaningful or lasting way is almost nil. Higher execs are disconnected from the organization, as are locations and departments from each other. High turnover of staff. The business model claims instructors as the product but is set up for turning over instructors as often as possible. While this keeps the course fresh, it contradicts the lip service paid to staff being the greatest asset. In other departments as well as instructional staff the pay is low and the benefits are not great. Commitment to a mission, as worthy as it may be, can only hold people for so long. Execs don’t show any real interest in doing anything about that. This business model works fine for what it was intended, make lots and lots of money. Now that they’ve made enough money to be bought, it’ll be interesting to see if things change and how.

I've never been at a company where senior leadership is more out of touch from their employees, top to bottom. They're often smug and aren't up front about their true intentions. And their reputation isn't just internal... just ask what others in the tech community think about certain leaders at GA. Poor culture = Revolving door of talent / toxic atmosphere. Because GA's leadership being disconnected from their business, there's no core culture that drive everyone at the company. Employees spend a lot of time griping, and ultimately look to move on within a year or two. After a few months being there, you can really start to feel this all around you.