Pros
It's unique - a privately owned company with the feel of a well-established firm. It's also growing and changing, so in some ways, it's like being at a start-up in that, as an employee, what you do helps shape what the firm looks like in the next year, even though some of the facilities, people, and processes have been in place and operating for decades. I believe that it's a good place for a young professional to gain some experience and begin developing his or her career. Work can be challenging, often fast-paced, and you could have an opportunity to make an impact quickly. There's plenty of opportunity to learn about chemicals processing and chemical plants, as well as how to adapt to changing market conditions. If you're mid-career coming in, it's a different deal. The rank and file employees are helpful, and take pride in their work. Compensation is good if you're entry-level, you can do better and be appreciated more somewhere else if you're not. Ascend does some things very well: it is adept at taking an initiative, getting the workforce reorganized and executing rapidly. Benefits are good, but are being reduced steadily each year. The company seems stable, is making money, and company growth potential is tangible. Work teams evolve quickly too as project and plant needs change, so there's potential for lots of exposure to colleagues, systems, and other departments at the site. Safety and safety awareness is a key company value, the ESH department is highly visible, accessible, and responsive. Performance bonuses are offered and paid, yearly, but typically, employees receive 40% of the beginning of the year projected bonus. Raises, if offered, run around 2%.
Cons
1. The work environment is highly politicized. There's an old-guard held over from the Monsanto days, they control key parts of the management structure. This group hands down decisions and determines direction. If you're not "in" with them, ask too many questions, fail to defer to their opinions, or challenge a decision, you'll be singled out for discipline and phased out. 2. Work-life balance is poor; the average work week is about 50-65 hrs a week and can go as high as 90. There are retention issues (very high attrition) that are fueling chronic under-staffing; that extends the average work week. 3. The performance evaluation system is "rank and yank". Consequently, being recognized as a good contributor or even a satisfactory employee has little to nothing to do with job performance and more to do with ability to navigate the politics. 4. The IT infrastructure and technology was stuck in the stone age when I started; it's been upgraded, but was still a good 5 years behind industry standard, when I left. 5. There are contractors there who have more tenure with the firm than many of the permanent employees, but I understand that HR has started addressing this. 6. Communication from upper management is sometimes unclear, and sometimes does not make it past mid-management in a timely manner, as some of them routinely withhold these communications on a self-perceived 'need-to-know' basis. 7. Middle management, especially the Monsanto contingent, seems highly resistant to change. 8. Morale is low, but there are a lot of good people there who keep giving their best anyway. I was told when I came in: 'don't expect to be acknowledged or rewarded for good work - get used to knowing that a job well done will have to be its own reward'. Some people may find this bothersome. 9 Training and employee development opportunities are non-existent, for all practical purposes.
