Pros
The technical work is genuinely interesting, and there are many talented, capable people throughout the engineering organisation. Many long-serving engineers are trying really hard to retain the company they want to build, but new leaders from Sisense / Opower have negatively impacted the culture.
Cons
The company presents itself as an employee-first, world-class technology organisation, but my experience was very different. Over an extended period, concerns were raised repeatedly through the appropriate channels, yet little meaningful action followed. Leadership acknowledged many of the issues and repeatedly stated that improvements were coming, but the follow-up was largely theatre. Eventually, it has become clear that listening (ex: Amir's AMA) and acting were two very different things. Compensation and job titles also failed to reflect the responsibilities people were actually performing. Leadership repeatedly committed to introducing transparent salary bands and sharing market benchmarking to demonstrate fair and consistent compensation. Each acknowledgement raised expectations that transparency was finally coming, only for progress to quietly disappear without explanation. Trust has steadily eroded as promises have consistently outweighed delivery. The “unlimited holiday” policy is one of the most misleading benefits the company advertises. In practice, it operates much closer to statutory minimum leave than unlimited leave. Unused leave cannot be carried over, yet there is no proactive communication from people-function or managers warning employees that they are about to lose it. When leaving the company, employees should not expect the policy to work in their favour. My advice to prospective employees is simple: take every day of leave you believe you are entitled to. Learning and development is another area where the company falls well short of expectations for a leading technology organisation. Beyond occasional ad hoc AWS training sessions, there is still no structured approach to developing technical, leadership or professional capability. For a company that positions itself as a world-class technology organisation, the absence of a credible learning and development strategy is difficult to justify. These issues point to a wider problem within the People function. After more than two years, there is still no meaningful salary transparency, no mature learning and development programme, and no clarity around fundamental policies such as annual leave. Chief people officer's accountability should apply to the People function in exactly the same way it applies to Engineering, Product or Delivery. Based on the outcomes delivered, I have little confidence in the current chief people officer. Finally, the quality of leadership hiring does not always reflect the company’s stated ambition. Kraken presents itself as a world-class technology company, yet many recent executive appointments have come from the same small group of organisations rather than from companies widely recognised for engineering and product excellence. Recent examples include multiple executives from Sisense (CEO, Chief People Officer and Chief Commercial Officer) and Opower ( VP of Sales, VP of Customer Success, VP of Engineering, VP of Product). There is nothing inherently wrong with those companies, but for an organisation aspiring to compete with the very best technology businesses, I expected a broader range of leadership experience and a higher benchmark for executive hiring. Ultimately, I don’t judge executives by where they came from. I am judging them by what they deliver. Unfortunately, after couple of years, the chief people office has failed to deliver basic expectations around compensation transparency, learning and development, and employee trust. Leadership should be accountable for those outcomes.