Company is in the tail end of a transition from an effectively org-chart-less, flat, "pool of people who get assigned to project teams which are then broken up and reformed on later projects" culture to something a bit more structured (basically a series of teams which have a clear lead to facilitate cross-functional efforts, and fungible resources below them), while still maintaining key principles such as no titles, peer review up/down/laterally, ability to move between projects, etc. This caused some confusion, especially mid-transition (pretty good now though) and people who really feel drawn to mega-flat orgs did not appreciate the change (see one of the above reviews), though most employees really do seem happy with the increased clarity. There are still times where people struggle to know who is in charge of some component due to the semi-flat, highly cross-functional operation.
Company is currently in a hardcore "deliver products" mode where cash (and more importantly time) is an incredibly precious resource, so not too much time is spent on letting people try totally new things, explore new interests, etc for career development. That's just the nature of the beast. If/when we're profitable we'll be able to hire more junior employees or allow people to learn a bit more on company time, etc... for now we tend to ask people to do what they're good at. Now, plenty of people advance/grow by doing that, but it's not because the company let them spend lots of time truly learning on the job, but because they demonstrated that they were capable and were given more (often related) responsibilities as a result.
