CodeAI reviews about "team"

Leadership team makes decisions based on hype and doesn't set clear targets for the organization to execute on.

Code.org is full of passionate people who care deeply about the organization and its mission. This strong emotional investment creates a culture which might feel intense for those who prefer a more detached or transactional work environment.

It's hard to work in the education space, with a mission that focuses on equity in computer science, without also needing to deal with the divisiveness of our political system. If you don't want to deal with politics in the workplace, this may not be the place for you. The leadership holds strongly onto the north star to make sure the primary focus of bringing CS to all kids is achieved, and I think they do this really well for the most part, but it has caused internal conflict as not everyone agrees with some of the rhetoric. But if you look at the actual product of the company - the affected state policies, the curriculum, the marketing, the videos, the software representation, it's clear that this company is having a massive impact on equity in CS education. This political division may be less of an issue now than it was a year ago as the company has tried to address this.

We are a non-profit that cares about and seeks to address and improve diversity, equity, and inclusion in computer science and our team. Our mission and our culture attract passionate people. But "diversity, equity, and inclusion" do not mean the same thing to everyone. We have had instances where we have hired people obsessed with specific interpretations and biases around these noble-sounding ideals. They have used them as both shield and hammer to excuse their personal biases and to try and intimidate co-workers and leadership into submitting to their demands. They put a lot of effort into questioning every decision, critiquing every initiative, and ultimately attempting to shift the mission and work of Code.org to serve their specific concerns- or go out of business. These people have had no hesitation in dividing the world, and our team, into what they deem as saints and sinners. And they are more than happy to take it upon themselves to gang up if necessary and punish non-believers. Examples must be made. It is intimidating and effective. It is also remarkably distracting. Their unrealistic expectations and endless pessimism disrupt the flow of our work. Their obsession with identity politics divides our team into smaller and smaller groups. Their intense moral certainty and lack of accountability or self-awareness make people unwilling and even afraid to speak out against them. Code.org has bent over backward to please this small fraction of our current and former team, but at some point, enough is enough. Code.org has finally reached that point. It is not a pleasurable experience to work with people who have an expectation that this org should change just for them and a desire to see it burn if it doesn't.

In the past few years they have ended almost every unique benefit to working at Code.org over other EdTech companies/non-profits. Just work at one of those. Leadership slashes entire teams and crucial roles. Claiming they're no longer relevant/needed, laying off team members without a chance at working on another team or anything. And then replaces the roles with ever-so-slightly different openings within 6 months. When leaders make mistakes subordinates take the fall while leaders get "learning opportunities". Worklife balance does NOT exist Criticism are taken personally by leaders and then they guilt you for making them feel bad instead of doing anything about the problem

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.