Sequoia Equities reviews

Boasting record sales while taking away the 3 hour paid Sunday schedule and rest and recharge days was super disappointing! There seems to be a disconnect between corporate and the properties on that front, as well as increasing resident-facing fees across the properties with no forewarning or clear explanation to give to residents, meaning they react with their anger towards the on-site team.

There appears to be a significant disconnect between Sequoia’s corporate leadership and on-site teams. The executive team often seems out of touch with the daily realities at their properties, suffering from tunnel vision and limited involvement in actual operations. Site visits from leadership are rare—maybe once or twice a year—and usually result in surface-level critiques. They’ll point out visible issues that the service teams simply don’t have time to address due to the nonstop demands of turning units, which is largely driven by high resident turnover and poor tenant retention. The expectations placed on site teams are often unrealistic. We are pushed to deliver top-tier results without the proper staffing or resources to support that level of performance. Sequoia tends to focus heavily on customer service “wow” factors—rolling out flashy, unnecessary extras to stand out in the industry. However, prospective residents often walk away unimpressed once they realize how much they’re paying for these superficial features. Work-life balance has taken a serious hit. Recently, employees were given only 2–3 weeks’ notice that remote work—one day per week—would no longer be allowed. This decision was made without regard for those with established commitments such as childcare, therapy, classes, or transportation challenges. Another frustrating policy involves the leasing office’s Sunday hours. Leasing consultants are expected to work a full shift while business hours are still 12-5pm. They still must take their legally required meal breaks during office hours—meaning the office closes for an hour in the middle of the open window. Offering flexibility and going back to 12-5 schedule for the office atleast could easily resolve this, but instead, leadership has chosen rigidity over practicality. It would be beneficial if the person behind this decision to come forward and explain their reasoning to the broader team. Additionally, there are concerns with how resources are allocated across properties. The creation of the Service Specialist role was a great concept—two skilled technicians designated to help out where needed. In practice, however, certain properties seem to have near-exclusive access to this support. Instead of asking why these sites repeatedly need outside help, we should be evaluating their internal leadership and team structure. One particular community has experienced a revolving door of employees and has been unable to retain a Service Manager for what feels like the entire year. Her own staff indicates she is rarely on-site and is known for being patronizing rather than supportive and goal driven. It raises the question: why are poorly managed properties continuously rewarded with extra resources, while others despite being short-staffed go above and beyond with little acknowledgment? As a dedicated Community Manager who consistently seeks out extra projects to improve my property, it’s frustrating and demotivating to see subpar leadership benefit from company resources that could be better distributed. Constructive feedback and internal accountability are long overdue.