Pros
Good benefits, competitive time off, decent retirement plan
Cons
This is a company that has largely lost its strategic direction. A series of major decisions over the past several years have left it in a difficult position, both operationally and culturally. One of the most impactful missteps was the acquisition of Melissa & Doug. The integration has not gone as planned, and it appears the pre-acquisition due diligence was insufficient. Operational weaknesses at Melissa & Doug have largely been left unaddressed, with Spin Master allowing the business to operate independently while banking on an overly ambitious ERP transformation to eventually resolve structural issues. That ERP program is positioned internally and externally as a silver bullet—critical to shareholder confidence and the realization of “synergies.” As a result, timelines appear to be prioritized over outcomes, with scope steadily reduced to ensure delivery. This approach risks leaving core teams with tools that fall short of what’s needed, ultimately slowing productivity rather than enabling it. Another questionable decision has been the appointment of the current CEO, who previously served on the board. Her background is heavily digital, with limited experience in physical supply chains or consumer packaged goods operations. Communication from the executive level often lacks clarity and conviction, particularly in town hall settings, where direct questions are frequently deferred or answered in a way that creates more confusion than alignment. The company’s evolving return-to-office policy has also been poorly executed. What began as a loosely enforced three-day requirement quickly shifted to a rigid four days per week, despite insufficient office capacity to support it. While leadership frames this as a return to collaboration and company culture, it has been widely perceived as a quiet attrition strategy. During my exit process, it was suggested that a full five-day mandate may follow. This is occurring alongside significant real estate investments in high-cost locations, increasing pressure to justify office utilization. Over the past five years, the company has undergone three separate rounds of layoffs while maintaining a near-constant hiring freeze. Share performance is at a five-year low, with limited indication of near-term recovery. Operational support functions further reflect the company’s internal dysfunction. Accessing Human Resources requires submitting a ticket, similar to an IT service request, rather than speaking directly with an HR partner. Responses are often impersonal and, in many cases, lack clear identification of the individual providing guidance, which erodes trust and accountability in situations where discretion and clarity matter. IT delivery presents similar challenges. Resources are not allocated effectively, project timelines are frequently missed, and delivered solutions often fall short of the original business requirements. This creates repeated rework for teams and undermines confidence in technology as an enabler rather than a bottleneck. Internally, teams are siloed, with minimal cross-regional alignment. Processes vary widely by geography, making global collaboration inefficient and inconsistent. While there are a handful of strong leaders, many at the Director level and above lack the skills needed to effectively lead teams, drive accountability, or create alignment across functions. Progression within the organization often favors visibility over capability. Those who are the most vocal tend to advance, regardless of demonstrated performance, impact, or prior experience. The organizational structure itself reflects this dysfunction, with overlapping titles, unclear reporting lines, and managers frequently reporting to other managers as peers under senior directors. This lack of clarity reinforces confusion rather than accountability.
