Integral Ad Science reviews

Engineering leadership just does not deserve to be there. People at the top are simply not capable of handling day to day decisions that concern their employees. To add to that, there is a notion of hiring at the top. Engineering doesnt work? Well let us hire 15 new Directors to fix it. Or promoting junior level folks to higher positions is just not the way. Managers need to manage, engineers need to develop. Just because someone is a good developer, doesnt automatically make them a good leader. Definitely not a great VP.

Given the size and scope of certain market problems that IAS typically focuses on solving, progress against them can seem to be made at a slow pace. When we take a step back and compare this progress against other large industry advancements, particularly with incumbent incentives against change, the steps IAS has taken forward for the industry--and for realizing value itself--have actually been taken rather quickly. When combining this with the fact that IAS has been a notable ad tech growth story, sometimes characterized with scaling fast at the cost of efficiency and tech debt, it's not unrealistic for people coming from early stage start-ups to find points of frustration at the 800-person company. Having spent many years in seed to growth stage start-ups, I can sympathize with this. But I've also found the respectively different priorities, trade-offs, and challenges to be exciting and developmentally important to my career. There were a handful of tenured high performers that chose to depart after a lucrative exit. That isn't really surprising, should be expected, and I'm really happy for them. This has created opportunities for IAS to elevate other high performers, which seems to have gone pretty well, but hiring in strong engineers, often with niche experience and at a quick pace, has sometimes been a challenge. We could probably do a better job investing in hiring and growing high-potential employees.