ASM reviews

Everything else. Literally everything. Unfortunately, the real standout performer is the CHRO, who has managed to turn the HR function into something that feels less like people leadership and more like an ongoing social experiment in gaslighting. If you’ve ever wondered what happens when psychological safety is replaced with performative empathy and carefully worded emails, this is the place to find out. Everything is a “test.” Policies are tests. Culture resets are tests. Employees are tests. The only thing not being tested is whether any of this improves the organization. She openly says she doesn’t care about Glassdoor reviews, which honestly explains the entire leadership philosophy better than any strategy document ever could. And yet somehow there’s still budget to have an agency respond to those same reviews with polite corporate templates about “taking feedback seriously.” No one believes that. One of the more fascinating leadership habits is the constant messaging from her that ASM employees have “mindset issues.” Apparently every concern, question, or disagreement is a mindset problem—just never hers. At some point it becomes hard to ignore that when everyone else is the barrier, the common denominator might not be the organization. Then there’s the performance distribution. Every year, 15% of employees are handed over to the performance-gods, whether they deserve it or not. Nothing says “high performance culture” like mathematically guaranteeing failure. Leadership calls it a "guided" distribution. It isn’t. It's forced. It actually takes real effort to earn strong Glassdoor scores. Leaders have to communicate clearly, treat people with respect, create trust, and make decisions that resemble strategy instead of improvisation. That level of consistency is hard work. What’s honestly more impressive is achieving the opposite and sustaining something like a ~15% CEO approval rating and ~25% recommendation rate. Numbers like that don’t happen accidentally. That takes alignment, repetition, and a shared executive commitment to ignoring feedback at scale. Truly remarkable execution. 👏 Currently, the wave of resignations across the global People team will almost certainly be reframed as intentional. None of them will be “regrettable losses.” They’ll be described as alignment working exactly as designed, or proof the culture shift is succeeding. It’s a very efficient system—when people leave, it validates the strategy instead of questioning it. To put things into perspective, 25% of the global People Team roles are currently vacant. Yes, twenty-five percent. At that point it’s less a hiring strategy and more speed dating hosted by red flags, served with a side of emotional exhaustion, sprinkled with corporate delusion, powered completely by panic, and fueled by whatever is left of employee morale. As someone in HR, I never expected the hardest part of the job would be feeling embarrassed to admit I work in HR. Watching a function that’s supposed to advocate for employees turn into executive reputation management has been… memorable. That’s not a culture problem. That’s a leadership choice and a credibility gap.

Immediate management is a mess. Deadlines get set that are already unrealistic from day one. When things go wrong, managers just blame other teams and engineers instead of actually focusing on the issue. A lot of energy goes into office politics, draining the work output. The pressure is constant and people are burning out — some are already on leave, others are clearly on the way there. Based on feedback from the management, it seems to be that way by design.