Vantaggi
Working in Research used to mean contributing to meaningful, evidence-based work that helped organizations build more equitable workplaces. Some of us still strive for that, but it has become increasingly difficult under current leadership.
Svantaggi
Since Research was folded into “Product,” the focus has shifted from insight to image. The CEO and CPO do not appear to understand the nature of Research or why independence matters. The CPO, a clear nepotism hire, lacks the expertise to guide the team effectively. Her decisions often prioritize branding over rigor, leaving experienced researchers sidelined or pushed out. One recent example speaks volumes. The CPO rejected a Research project that followed best practices, met deadlines, and aligned with our standards. When asked to explain her concerns, she admitted it was the first Research report she had ever read—despite leading the department for over a year—and said she couldn’t articulate what she wanted from future work. That kind of directionless leadership is demoralizing for a team built on clarity and precision. Partnerships with external organizations that lack research rigor have only compounded the problem. Projects are launched for optics rather than outcomes, and the results reflect that. The few collaborations that have succeeded—typically those with university-based, research-first partners—show what’s possible when expertise is actually respected. A recent example says it all: a Research report on menopause that leadership initially resisted went on to be the most engaged product of the year. It proved that sound research resonates—when it’s allowed to exist. Unfortunately, leadership seems more intent on reshaping the work to fit narratives than producing evidence-based insights. Morale across the team is low. Processes that once supported rigor are being replaced by ad hoc directives, and the people setting direction seem disconnected from both the research and the mission.