• Limited Investment in Employee Development
Opportunities for internal and external training, certifications, and professional development were limited. When inquired about with leadership, feedback was limited and follow-ups did not generate any new insights from leadership. Greater investment in employee growth would strengthen both individual skill sets and long-term organizational capability. Fortunately, I self-invested in myself, attending industry conferences and other areas of interest on my own dime and down-time.
• Limited Internal Mobility
As a smaller program (approximately 25–30 employees), opportunities for advancement or role changes are inherently constrained. Budget limitations further reduced the likelihood of new role creation while folks advanced only in a linear fashion. Opportunities did not exist or were very limited for horizontal or diagonal stretch projects to get skill enhancement and programmatic exposure.
• Lagging Focus on Technology and AI
The organization appeared slower to adopt emerging technologies and technological integrations. Increased investment in innovation would better align with the pace of today’s evolving workplace. Workplace tools like Asana were slow to roll out, did not have program-wide cohesion and lacked a unifying change-management plan. This caused the tool to be merely be another platform that collected dust rather than a collaborative forum for all employees to understand where work is falling from a timing perspective and how to enhance collaboration. The use of AI tools were not allowed within the workplace, and were a clear obstacle to generating efficiencies.
• No Severance Structure
The absence of a severance policy may be a concern for employees seeking stability and recognition of tenure in the event of layoffs.
• Reactive Performance Management from Leadership
Performance feedback processes were informal and often reactive. A more structured and proactive approach—incorporating regular reviews and stakeholder input—would better support employee development and alignment. Proactive feedback requests were not responded due to leadership unavailability and non-responsiveness over a span of several months. Awareness regarding improvement areas were only provided at the time of being placed on a performance improvement plan.
• Ad Hoc and High-Pressure Workflows
Project execution often lacked consistent structure, with priorities driven by immediate client demands. This environment made it difficult to set boundaries and contributes to the potential of cultural and internal burnout over time across the team. Ad-Hoc client demands without boundaries, and a highly submissive attitude to always say yes despite existing and previously communicated priorities, led to compounding work within already aggressive timelines and stretched capacities that would negatively impact the final product.
• Unclear Prioritization and Planning
Frequent shifts in priorities and a high volume of deliverables made effective planning challenging. Clearer direction on short- and mid-term goals would improve execution and focus.
• Constraints on Innovation
While there was interest in trying new approaches, practical limitations (e.g., oversight requirements, budget, and technology constraints) restricted the ability to meaningfully innovate. Internally, technological developments were stagnant and were unlikely to be deployed or implemented within 12 months (tech team was often delayed, and easy and minor platform requests would not be solutioned). Additionally, use of artificial intelligence not allowed and suffocated creative solutioning to a myriad of issues that existed internally.
• Broad Role Scope and Workload Imbalance
Roles often extended beyond their intended scope, requiring the management multiple functions simultaneously. While this created opportunities to build new skills and it is understood that is required at times, it also led to competing priorities, increased workload, and potential impacts on quality—especially without additional staffing support or backfill. Without expanding to an additional employee/head, to offset the increased workload that has been normalized is to enable burnout and decreased quality of work.
• Limited Team Engagement
As a remote workplace, there were minimal structured opportunities for team connection (e.g., virtual events, affinity groups, or informal engagement), which may impact team cohesion over time. There was no culture of learning what others do and how it is interconnected to the bigger picture of the program, no coffee-chat culture, or non business-hour engagement points to boost morale.
• Lack of Defined Standards of Excellence
There was no clearly established framework for success (e.g., guiding principles, program charter, or aligned goals), resulting in shifting priorities and diluted focus. When even asked for an organizational chart at the beginning of employment, leadership was unable to circulate to me and relayed “that’s a good question”. Very disappointing when trying to get oriented on hierarchal dynamics and understanding where to go internally. Of which had not been experienced in my near two decades of employment.
• Inconsistent Communication Practices
Project-specific meetings called by leadership were sometimes conducted without clear agendas or sufficient preparation. Limited feedback on shared materials and a lack of structured leadership communication occasionally led to misalignment.
• Leadership Availability and Responsiveness
Leadership was at times unavailable for mission-critical meetings, key recurring meetings/updates, or timely responses in shared documents and communication channels. One-on-one meetings were occasionally missed or significantly shortened due to late starts, limiting opportunities for meaningful feedback and alignment. This lack of consistent engagement could lead to miscommunication, fragmented messaging, and increased reliance on individual judgment in high-stakes situations. Very disheartening for 10/15 minute late starts to be normalized, which tacks on to the realization that you’re in the role alone without true leadership support.
• Unclear Leadership Support in Goal Setting
During onboarding, there was limited guidance from leadership in establishing clear, aligned goals. Rather than providing historical context, defined priorities, or insight into key problem areas, I was expected to independently create my own goals. While I took initiative, the lack of feedback and alignment with broader program objectives made it difficult to ensure goals were strategically connected and impactful, resulting in a less structured and effective transition into the role. It was beginning my role in the blind to say the least. Furthermore, this lack of alignment persisted due to lack of town halls or leadership updates on how employee work should be tying into big-picture leadership work and goals.
• Psychological Safety Concerns
At times, employee feedback or requests for support were later referenced in performance discussions. This discouraged open communication and limit the sense of psychological safety needed for a healthy and transparent work environment. Additionally, this delivered the reality that leadership was not an ally and if came down to it, my observations and requests for any training or the need for additional, or new, tools would be manipulated as incompetence or an inability to perform.