CodeAI reviews about "ceo"

High attrition, disconnected leadership, cultural struggles and a new unifying approach that is anything but unifying. Our culture used to feel inclusive and supportive. A few months ago, the CEO went on an offensive rant (that he has not apologized for) and the company has been reeling ever since. So many folks have left because of these recent events that engineering is painfully thin. Folks join because the mission looks promising on paper. In practice, the company cares more about republican stakeholders and donors than the teachers and students they claim to serve, or even their own employees.

CEO and executive team are very defensive, reactive, and do not believe in a culture of feedback. Explicitly denied the formation of employee resource groups (something I've never experienced at a company before). From my experience, only brought up core values as a way to defend decisions made after-the-fact. It felt like I should be afraid if I disagreed with executive leadership and that there could be retaliation if I were to speak up to leadership. CEO often interrupts product timelines or in-flight work with one-off projects that he personally has decided to roll out, with very little to no planning and short-timelines. I don't usually write these reviews, but have decided to do so as a warning. I absolutely would not recommend working here. If you are interviewing, try and ask as direct and specific questions as possible about leadership, company culture, and product decisions.

The organization moves fast and has been successful by pivoting to take advantage of opportunities. If you value consistency/stability more than agility, this may not be the right fit.

- The CEO is manipulative, harmful, and unwilling to be challenged. He regularly demonstrates deeply problematic behaviors and has yet to face any real accountability. In Spring 2022, he went on a wildly inappropriate tirade that caused significant harm to a number of marginalized employees. There was no accountability for this behavior, nor acknowledgment of the harm caused by the org. Many folks (who had the ability/privilege to do so) left as a result. - The recent "unifying" approach is your typical "no politics" culture that has been plaguing the tech industry in recent years. Despite an org that claims to prioritize equity, this CEO (and other senior leadership) is more interested in prioritizing the comfort of certain political identities over the safety of students, teachers, and employees who are part of marginalized groups. - Managers and employees often get burnt out quickly as they try to challenge leadership and push things in the right direction. The CEO refuses to be challenged and it is impossible to navigate or effect change. - This org is a classic example of "when someone shows you who they are; believe them" -- it is clear they are unwilling to listen to feedback, despite the values they claim. Mission is not enough - it matters *how* you get there and this org does not "walk the walk".

Management does not have respect for educators or for those outside the tech space, so they do not leverage the talents or expertise of their non-technical staff. People are hired on and promoted who don't know what they are doing, causing massive turnover and loss of institutional knowledge. One example from a non-technical division is a person who was hired to manage a team, prompted the entire team to leave within a year, then was promoted to manage a merge between her original team and another, prompting an exodus in the merged team. In general, employees feel frustrated and disillusioned with the organization, causing a lot of negativity. The company responds to this with mandatory "team building" activities that feel forced and demand the sort of toxic positivity that precludes solving the problems with the company. Other times, all hands meetings are spent with leadership defending bad behavior. Multiple times a (recently fired) employee or other member of the non-profit community has has been accused some sort of bad behavior at a company meeting as a defense of leadership's actions, only for the CEO to later admit that the behavior had never happened. It's really hard to keep up morale for this.