Pros
Applies to Minneapolis (I didn’t work in the plants): whip smart line employees (sub-manager), a real recognition company-wide that things aren’t working, some leaders are willing to cut the BS and get results, generally a progressive HR and a desire to be a good company. Very entrepreneurial within limits. If you can build and keep consensus you’ll go far. If you can’t, don’t even apply. Strong institutional history. Cutting edge marketing thinking in many ways. A scary-smart R&D function.
Cons
The rotation culture stunts the company. The needless movement of employees is like a Bonsai artist trimming anything growing. The rotation system kills institutional memory, limits an employee’s ability to see a project through to sustainability, incentivizes rampant careerism, and ensures you’re always focused on the next role to the detriment of your current role. My “2 year rotations” were as follows: 18 months, 6 months, 9 months, 14 months. I gave up mastering the job; what was the point? Most marketing-related employees abandon any notion of deep competency and strive only for shallow short-term wins. Every year they’re either rotating or getting a new boss. 1 quarter out of every 4 is focused on reacting to turnover. The path to promotion is gaming the rotation system. Since your projects won’t be judged 2 years down the line on efficacy, you only need worry about their visibility at launch. If your idea is flawed, the failure becomes the next person’s responsibility. The prior employee’s systems are adopted regardless of whether they were effective. You might do better with the rotations. It’s possible to leverage them into career success. I just couldn’t live with how they killed company performance over the years I worked there. Most glaring is that current leadership is rarely impacted through 3 layoffs.