The environment often felt like “build the plane while flying it,” but no one gave us the tools, fuel, or map needed to succeed. Leadership maintained a strong focus on activity tracking and frequent check-ins, which created a perception of low trust and limited autonomy. At the same time, hiring expectations were frequently narrow, rigid, and difficult to reconcile with market realities. In some cases, hiring and internal mobility decisions appeared to be influenced by pre-existing perceptions or informal preferences, which could limit consideration of both external candidates and internal talent and raised concerns around consistency, fairness, and inclusivity.
Candidate experience did not always appear to be a priority. Processes could be inconsistent, communication limited, and decision-making criteria subject to change without clear rationale. This made it challenging to ensure a transparent and equitable experience for candidates and, at times, difficult to confidently advocate on their behalf.
There were also multiple instances of abrupt employee and leadership departures, including well-regarded, high-performing individuals, often with minimal communication. The lack of transparency around these changes contributed to instability and prompted questions about how performance and fit were being assessed across the organization.
Leadership style, in some cases, felt more directive than supportive. Communication could be perceived as intimidating, and there were moments where discussions about peers or cross-functional partners occurred in ways that did not reinforce a culture of trust or professionalism. Over time, this dynamic made it harder for employees to feel psychologically safe, particularly when navigating feedback or decision-making processes. Team meetings were often high-pressure rather than collaborative, and frontline managers appeared to be balancing significant top-down pressure with limited support, leading to visible frustration and inconsistent guidance.
