Pros
1 star because 0 isn’t an option. The majority of these reviews are morphing into a trauma appendix. - Work: When leadership committed to a project, it was an exciting opportunity to take initiative and innovate. However, they often lacked realistic budgets, resources, and timelines. - People: There were strong, dedicated folks at corporate and properties. Many of them carried the weight of the organization, and their hard work was always commendable. - Benefits: Competitive health, maternity/paternity leave, and standard 401(k) package. However, the high-stress environment undermined well-being, leaving the need to take advantage of mental health resources. - Environment: Nice office, although leadership's stance on the corporate hybrid policy constantly fluctuated and varied significantly by department.
Kontras
- The only growth is the top 1% 's bonuses and employees’ therapy bills. All that glitters is not gold; the Kool-Aid dries out. Internal dynamics heavily influenced office politics, favoritism, and personal relationships. Leadership frequently engaged in unprofessional behavior, prioritizing status and reputation over fostering a healthy and supportive work environment for all. The steady departure of talented individuals became increasingly apparent. Insurmountable conditioned stress, internalized pressure, and survival mode all require to be unlearned post-exit. - C-Suite is run like a country club. A group dominated by silver spoon privilege created an impenetrable barrier no matter how dedicated or accomplished. Leadership preached entrepreneurship and shared commitment, yet often lacked the experience and/or humility to support those ideals. - They say hard work pays off; just not for you. Compensation and promotions were inconsistent and under market value, with leadership often citing external economic conditions while promoting select individuals without clear justification. Performance reviews lacked transparency and often downplayed employee achievements. - This company runs on gossip & dysfunction; someone call Bravo. Leadership dynamics often blurred professional boundaries in concerning ways: making inappropriate comments about colleagues’ appearances, talking behind backs, attempting to set up employees in personal relationships, and discussing employees’ private lives (often shared in confidence) under the guise of ‘caring.’ Ethical lines were frequently crossed, with unsolicited personal questions and invasive commentary occurring in professional settings. - Snooping on employees’ social media isn’t just a hobby. It’s an Olympic sport, and they’re going for gold. - The office politics make Frank Underwood look ethical. (Un)spoken office politics and personal relationships fostered an environment of gossip and scrutiny, making employees feel manipulated rather than supported. You couldn’t simply be good at your job, you had to play the game. Management communication was often condescending, creating unnecessary urgency and rarely acknowledging mistakes. - Working to the bone is a praised personality trait. Corporate and property teams were consistently overloaded with unrealistic expectations, excessive responsibilities, and a relentless demand to ‘wear many hats.’ The volume of tasks expected to juggle was unmanageable, leading to high stress and burnout. Any mention of ‘work-life balance’ was met with judgment from those whose identities were entirely tied to work. - Failed ethical & moral principles. ESG initiatives and diversity efforts emerged from a 2020-era desperation for relevance. They often appeared performative rather than genuine, and the committees formed were eventually deprioritized and disintegrated. Diversity efforts in hiring significantly lacked, leaving the few POCs to be show ponies. - HR is just a customer service hotline for executives. The department lacked independence from leadership, causing employees to withhold concerns out of fear of retaliation rather than trusting a fair resolution process.