No HR support for employees and doesn't have resources to support or train new managers - Regulatory Affairs Associate Ultragenyx Employee Review

1.0
Jan 25, 2019
Recommend
CEO approval
Business Outlook

Pros

Patient-forward, amazing cause, inspiring leadership

Cons

No HR or career development support for employees or managers. I was harassed by my manager verbally in person, individually and in meetings, and in writing over email. I was forced out of the company after only 3 months as there were no resources for her in terms of training to become a better manager or even to catch the incessant harassment, or for me at such a small company. It's a toxic environment, but might depend which group you're in and hopefully has changed 3 years later. This type of situation is common at small companies that are growing quickly--employees who need support become managers despite being under qualified and under supported--however this situation was extreme not only in the harassment but how HR dealt with it on both sides.

Explore other reviews about Ultragenyx

5.0
May 12, 2026
Recommend
CEO approval
Business Outlook

Pros

Great place with great people who are all pulling toward a common goal of bringing therapies to market that will change people's lives

Cons

For a small company, decisions can take a while to make because everyone wants to be involved, and most people in centralized roles work across all of the different brands within the company.

avatar
Ultragenyx Response
1mo
Thank you for your review and thoughtful feedback. We’re proud of the passion our teams bring to advancing therapies for patients, and we appreciate you sharing your perspective on how we work together. We’re glad to have you with us!
3.0
Jul 18, 2026
Recommend
CEO approval
Business Outlook

Pros

Good benefits and generally reasonable work-life balance.

Cons

In my experience, the organization had many layers of leadership (many VPs, Sr Directors and Directors), unclear decision-making authority, and frequently changing priorities, which sometimes slowed progress and weakened accountability. Considerable time was devoted to meetings, presentations, and strategy, but these activities did not always translate into measurable scientific outcomes. Hands-on scientists often appeared to have limited influence over technical decisions. Leadership also seemed to favor established hypotheses, outsourcing, and new biology-focused pilot studies over investing in innovative platform technologies that could address multiple diseases. Alternative perspectives and technical concerns did not always receive sufficient consideration. Career advancement appeared more accessible to highly visible employees with strong networking and presentation skills than to those contributing primarily through laboratory and technical work. While the benefits and work-life balance were positive, I would have valued clearer priorities, greater scientific openness, and stronger support for hands-on contributors.

See reviews by: Helpful|Rating|Date|All