Pros
Team: My team is very productive, skilled at what they do, and passionate about their work. There are a lot of people who genuinely care about building good products and doing things the right way, even when things feel a bit chaotic. Growth environment: Because the company is in a period of growth and benefiting from strong demand in AI and tech more broadly, there is a fair amount of opportunity to be creative and take ownership in your role. For self-starters, there’s room to step in, solve problems, and build things that might not be fully defined yet. Leadership: Steve S. and Tanner R. stand out as leaders who genuinely care about people and are willing to stay close to the work, not just observe from a distance. While I don’t often interact with them, the impact of their leadership is still felt. Tanner, in particular, taking the time to know employees by name even without direct interaction, goes a long way in a larger organization. Events & facilities: The events and facilities teams are genuinely exceptional. The events team puts a noticeable amount of thought and care into creating experiences that feel intentional rather than transactional. The facilities team is equally strong - responsive, patient, and consistently helpful in ways that often go unrecognized but absolutely matter day to day. Cross-functional experience: Cross-department collaboration has generally been positive, particularly with the Product team. The level of talent there is strong, and people are typically willing to go out of their way to support others, even when priorities are messy or shifting. Work-life balance: Work-life balance is one of the more consistent positives. In my experience, it’s rare to regularly work past 5. That separation is important to me - I don’t live to work - and it’s something I genuinely appreciate about the environment here.
Cons
I know this is long... None of this is new or isolated feedback. It’s common sentiment across teams. People are burnt out, undervalued, and running on fumes. Awardco has something good going, but right now it feels like we’re seeing how far we can push that before something gives. Compensation: Last year Awardco shared that salaries were “market adjusted.” In my case, that meant about a 10% increase - which sounds great until you factor in I was already 20–30% below market to begin with. Even now, I’m seeing roles elsewhere offering ~30% more for less responsibility. So yes, an adjustment happened. Whether it actually brought people to market is a different story. Comp distribution: There’s also a very clear gap in how compensation is handled across the org. Sales roles are paid extremely well - strong base + commission that can reach into the hundreds of thousands. Meanwhile, the teams responsible for supporting, implementing, and retaining that revenue are told there’s little room for increases. Apparently generating revenue is highly valuable, but keeping it is more of a nice-to-have. Five days in office *cracks knuckles*: The shift back to 5 days in office a couple years ago was handled in a way that’s very hard to forget. It was announced during an all-hands - “starting today, everyone is in office 5 days a week” - with no ramp time, no meaningful heads up to managers, and no time to adjust childcare needs, commuting, or basic life logistics. Managers were left without context, employees were left without support, and there was no acknowledgment of the disruption it created. Since then, the underlying message has often felt like “if leadership can make it work, so can you,” which lands differently when leadership and employees operate with very different levels of compensation and flexibility. What’s especially surprising is the lack of consideration for hybrid/remote options, especially when many comparable tech companies offer them as standard. The expectation remains full in-office presence, with limited flexibility outside formal accommodations. In some cases, the messaging around flexibility has gone further, with comments like “people want hybrid or remote to take care of their kids - we are not paying you to watch your kids.” I’ve also seen situations where returning parents from maternity/paternity were told they would only be considered for flexibility (for a short period) if they could prove to HR that they had full-time childcare in place while working from home. For those who were here when this change happened, it remains a lasting frustration in the employee experience. Adding to the above on Remote/Flexibility: There are exceptions to the in-office policy: if you're in sales or won the popularity contest. There are AEs hired fully remote despite having the in-office requirement. So flexibility does exist - it’s just not applied fairly. Favoritism: This one isn’t subtle. It shows up in our all-hands (we call it RTG), opportunities, and who gets rewarded. President’s Club is a good example - it's meant to be performance-based, but there are instances where a sales rep doesn't hit the requirements to go, but are somehow still invited. There have also been non-sales individuals included, which raises fair questions about what actually qualifies someone? When outcomes don’t consistently align with the stated criteria, it starts to feel less like performance and more like preference. At the same time, the company is willing to spend thousands per person on these trips, while also saying there’s limited room for broader compensation improvements. So the budget exists... just not for everyone. GTM direction: Since bringing in GTM leadership, the direction has felt inconsistent and often disconnected from reality. There’s a growing gap between what’s being promised externally and what teams can actually deliver. Internally, it creates confusion, rework, and a lot of “wait… who said we could do that?” moments. I feel for our Product team - they are at the mercy of what our GTM expects and often has no real reason/benchmarking/data for their promises other than "I said so." Leadership: A number of leaders seem to be in their roles because they’ve been here long enough, not necessarily because they’ve demonstrated the ability to lead at this stage of growth. Tenure and leadership aren’t the same thing. Right now, that difference is becoming pretty visible. HR/accountability: There’s also a noticeable inconsistency in how issues are handled. When individual contributors are reported, action tends to be quick. When concerns involve favored leadership, things become much less clear. Whether intentional or not, the perception is that accountability depends on your level in the org. Recognition culture: Awardco leans heavily on being a “recognition company.” That’s great in theory, but recognition doesn’t replace fair pay, benefits, consistency, or strong leadership. At some point, people stop being motivated by shoutouts and start asking harder questions and ultimately leave. There’s real potential at Awardco. But the gap between what’s said and what’s actually experienced day-to-day is hard to ignore.