Pros
First off, some framing. If you're comparing SurveyGizmo (SG) to a start-up, we're doing pretty well. If you're comparing SG to average enterprise-level SaaS companies with global customer bases, then we're way behind the pack. This is important, because I think SG is sometimes unfairly judged based on who we're being compared to. Bootstrapped: SG is in charge of its own fate. We can be nimble, respond to customers and competitors quickly, and define our strategic direction. And we've been profitable since year one, which not many companies can say. People (the absolute vast majority): Kind, respectful, collaborative and willing to help each other, fun, funny, smart, and endearingly quirky. The Product: Great UI, especially for its complexity. Very valuable tool across all verticals. Good selling potential. The CEO seems really skilled as a Product Manager/Owner in terms of ideas and vision, competitive positioning, etc. He knows the product intimately and can make possibilities realities. And he can be very inspiring, funny, and relatable when he's in a good mood. Equipment: MacBook Pros. Very competitive benefits package: 401k 6% match and you're fully vested on day 1. High company contribution to health insurance. 3 other insurances fully paid for by the company. Some nice perks that are expected in Boulder tech: Stocked kitchen, massage therapist giving 15-minute sessions weekly, weekly happy hour. Some above and beyond perks: We rent out one of the movie theaters where you can order dinner for Star Wars, Marvel, and the like movies from time-to-time. Some departments, Customer Support and Tech, seem to be steady and mostly satisfied. I doubt this sentiment is universal on any given day, but they seem to be the least disrupted by the transition, which makes total sense. They're still maintaining and optimizing our platform and supporting our customers regardless of what's changing elsewhere in the company.
Cons
Bootstrapped: We don't seem to have much capital at any given time. Therefore, it's probably very difficult to make long-term strategic decisions, invest in them, and follow-through. There's a very short-term focus when it comes to execution. Being visionary is great, but it's just words if it's not backed up by investment and priority. Also, there may be prohibitive incentives to take risk or reinvest in the company. The CEO does not have the CEO skillset for a company beyond a small, lifestyle company. And this is very normal. The CEOs who start companies are rarely the ones to lead in other phases, such as scaling. The problem is that, in my limited viewpoint, he doesn't realize it. Or if he does, he's not willing to transition into another role. This, above all else, will hold SG back no matter what else improves. Inconsistent CEO. He seems to be guided by his mood, so it's like an abusive partner. Is he having a good day and, therefore, will I? You just never know. And he's not consistently present. His office is upstairs at one of his other companies and, although some think it's better, the tone of a company is set by the CEO. When he comes in like a tornado and certain people and departments are targets of his frustration and then he disappears, it encourages people to keep their heads down, not rock the boat (or propose great ideas), and wait for his mood to pass. Alternatively, when he comes in and is funny, relatable, and genuinely interested, people get excited. Then, he disappears for weeks. This is unhealthy. Mostly inexperienced leadership: This is a common problem for scaling companies. You don't know what you haven't yet done and that's fair. However, SG provides little to no management training and, therefore, their gaps aren't filled in. Not engaging or trusting the leadership team consistently. Yes, some of them are inexperienced, but that doesn't mean they don't have input. And some of them have a wealth of experience and were brought into SG in 2016-17 so their experience could take the company forward. However, why is their input not asked upon consistently? They will not be able to do their best work at SG, which means they won't stay. Dysfunction: Unfortunately, some people think pivoting and changing our minds is smart and nimble and that's what makes us competitive. I agree in some cases. But too often pivoting and changing our minds is really due to dysfunction, lack of confident leadership, emotions of the day, general reactivity, or goodness knows what else and results in lost productivity, disempowerment, and demotivation. Outdated skillset: With a lack of attention on training and a lack of investment in education and best practices, in many ways the company is grossly outdated, especially operationally. We seem to define our operations by habits and behavior vs. what's most efficient and what's better. So much time is lost in the day-to-day. And there are no formal, consistent reviews. Unclear expectations: Expectations are often set in someone's mind and then not communicated. It can be very frustrating to be measured by a moving or partially covered target. If you choose to interview with SG, I recommend asking for a very clear list on how the role's success will be measured. Communication: Inefficient. Emails are far too many. Slack is not used as designed. Sharepoint is a link farm. Most communication is still face-to-face with or without all vested parties present. So, lots of time is spent catching up, making sure, reading to see what, if anything, applies to me, etc. Culture in transition: SG made a pretty big shift to being a sales-led, growth company in 2017. Any company making a shift like that will have disruption. The bad part about our disruption is that the person who was in charge of culture thought culture was about a happiness committee and happy hours. So, there's a lot of damage control in our future and it's achievable. Time will tell. Inconsistent drive of teammates: Please note these are my impressions and there's no way to tell they're accurate unless people share them directly. Some people seem to be at SG because they're loyal--whether to the CEO or their team. Loyalty is commendable, but loyalty without discernment does more harm than good. In many ways, it keeps people in bad situations and also perpetuates bad situations. Plus, who's to say the team isn't staying out of loyalty to their boss, even if it's bad for their careers or slowing down their ability to move up? Move up and out so others can advance. And advance yourself, too. Repeatable success in multiple company environments yields tremendous learnings. Some people seem to be at SG because it's comfortable and known. No judgment here. It's a fact at most places and your choices are your business. And some people seem to be at SG because they really want to affect change and help the company grow. The problem becomes: If they can't, they won't stay. If they do, then that's not their true motivation. A-players don't stay at companies that don't operate at the A-level and retain other A-players as teammates. And there are likely many other motivations others have that I didn't perceive. Vanilla office environment. Don't get me wrong. I love vanilla, but it's just okay. Nothing really memorable or inspiring, though, and greatly needs more frequent cleaning (especially in the kitchen and bathrooms throughout the work day).
