Remote reviews about "team"

Working here can feel less like joining a team and more like entering a revolving door. Hiring appears aggressive and volume driven, but terminations can be just as fast and unexpectedly handled, often with little transparency or meaningful feedback. The environment can feel transactional, very much as though employees are expendable rather than developed. There is minimal real support infrastructure. You’re expected to perform at a high level while navigating ambiguity, limited onboarding, and inconsistent leadership guidance. Instead of investing in growth, management attention often seems disproportionately focused on who is underperforming rather than celebrating or retaining top contributors. Recognition feels rare; scrutiny feels constant. Career progression pathways are unclear at best. Promotions and structured development conversations are limited, leaving many employees feeling stagnant. Compensation can lag behind market expectations, particularly given the performance pressure and revenue expectations placed on staff. The global hiring strategy may prioritize lower-cost regions, which can create an uneven sense of stability and job security across teams. It can feel less like building a strong culture and more like optimizing for cost efficiency. Perhaps most concerning is the communication style. Feedback is sometimes delivered publicly rather than privately, which can feel demoralizing and disrespectful. Psychological safety, the foundation of strong remote teams is completely absent with many people across different teams on long term mental health leave. For highly independent individuals who are comfortable with risk and minimal support, this environment may work. For those seeking mentorship, stability, fair compensation, and long-term growth, it may prove frustrating.

Over the past year, there has been a significant and abrupt shift in direction, particularly within the People function. Leadership began promoting a “high-performing” culture, but without clearly defining expectations or providing a structured path to succeed. What followed was confusion, constant pressure, and a growing sense of instability across the team. There has been a heavy push to adopt AI and deliver solutions through it, yet little to no enablement, training, or practical support has been provided. Teams are expected to produce results under vague direction, often feeling set up to fail rather than supported to succeed. Workloads have steadily increased to a point that feels unsustainable. At the same time, turnover has become difficult to ignore. People frequently leave across teams, often abruptly and without acknowledgment. In some cases, individuals are not even given the opportunity to say goodbye, which creates a culture of silence and unease. It raises serious concerns about how people are being managed and treated behind the scenes. There is a noticeable lack of investment in people. Development, coaching, and support are minimal. The expectation is that employees arrive with a fixed skill set and then instantly adapt to shifting demands without guidance. When challenges arise, accountability tends to fall entirely on the individual rather than being addressed at a systemic level. Leadership presence is also misaligned. There is a strong focus on external visibility—events, panels, and industry presence—while internal team support and engagement appear to be deprioritized. This creates a disconnect that is felt daily by those doing the work. Overall, the environment has become increasingly demanding, unclear, and, at times, discouraging. It is difficult to feel secure or supported, and many strong contributors have chosen to leave as a result.

- Mostly terrible management - Senior management is poor - Burnout culture - colleagues are worked to the bone, often crying in silence (they know they will be gaslit if they raise concerns) - Gaslighting from management - Employees 'disappear' from Slack overnight (they are fired) - You feel like a disposable Slack profile who could disappear any moment

Where to begin. Despite messaging around growth in the Americas, the company heavily favors EMEA, and teams in AMER/APAC face significant challenges. While leadership speaks often about expansion, the organization lacks the operational maturity and basic service offerings that are standard among competitors in this space. The company positions itself as differentiated through transparent pricing, in-country expertise, and strong customer support; however, this has not been my experience. Pricing has shifted from simple and competitive to heavily monetized, with many basic services now charged for that are free elsewhere. When asked to justify these changes or explain added value, clear answers are rarely provided. Sales was significantly over-hired without the operational infrastructure to support growth. Many deals stall or never fully implement, leading to frustrated customers and reputational damage. Communication during implementation is often poor, and prospects are sometimes asked to rely on references that do not reflect the same products or services being sold. Leadership turnover has been frequent, with executives and employees let go abruptly and with little transparency. One of the founders has stepped in to lead sales multiple times following executive departures, creating ongoing instability. While the company promotes strong values, the reality feels very different—executive leadership often leads with fear, which trickles down through management. Many managers lack industry experience and are hesitant to advocate for their teams. Decision-making is unclear, and managers are often afraid to speak up. There is little structure, and finding accurate information is difficult. The so-called single source of truth is consistently outdated, forcing employees to search through multiple Slack channels with conflicting answers—often only to be blamed later for having incorrect information. Compensation is another major issue. Commission plans change frequently—sometimes mid-quarter—and errors are common. Reps must audit commissions every month, and corrections can take weeks, occasionally rolling into future pay periods. Operations and sales are deeply misaligned. Implementation timelines are often months out, causing deals to fall through. Operations has no accountability tied to revenue outcomes, which leads to frequent pushback on new business and lost opportunities. Outside of EOR, product offerings are limited and difficult to sell competitively. The company continues to lose strong talent due to product gaps, poor execution, and unstable leadership. Overall, there is a significant gap between how the company markets itself and the day-to-day reality. If you are looking for stability, strong leadership, and well-supported products, this IS NOT the right place.

Don’t get blinded by the ‘flexibility’ that is offered with work from anywhere, it’s not worth the struggle. What they call transparency as one of the company values is often micromanagement and control. Target achievement is nearly impossible considering inexperienced leadership and lack of investments in the right direction which results in missing product development. The whole culture feels a bit fake and people are too scared to speak up. It doesn’t feel like a successful atmosphere and this company will drain you with very limited possibilities for promotions and a lot of internal favoritism or personal relationships influencing decisions, which further weakens trust and open communication across teams.