Company politics are a factor in just about any workplace, but so few organizations are as strictly governed by them as UserTesting. While upper management is comprised of only a handful of individuals, they've established a precedent in which feedback is appreciated (but only the 'right' kind), advancement is possible (but only if you're a relative or a buddy of theirs), and employees can distinguish themselves (but only through unreasonably long hours).
The c-suite's reluctance to promote from within the company remains prevalent throughout the workplace. In the few instances where opportunities do arise they are almost immediately gifted to the manager's favorite worker rather than the one who was most qualified. This issue would be less relevant if the compensation were adequate, if bonus work was rewarded, and if growth opportunities were present - however given that the average workweek ranges anywhere between 50-70 hours (6am calls and weekend hours included) and that the salary is barely livable, the whole politics-pill becomes a bit too hard to swallow.
It also should be noted, to the merit of UserTesting, that hostility within the company is greatly discouraged. However if the issue pertains to a manager's misconduct or abuse of power, then HR is entirely unresponsive, if not occasionally duplicitous in their approach. This brings me to the issue of trust: at UserTesting, the rift between management and employees only grows as bottom-up feedback becomes irrelevant (ironic for a feedback driven business model). This results in very little communication between the various departments, (both to one another and internally) and sadly makes any change a slow and tedious process.
