Vantaggi
Recent reviews have been either entirely positive or entirely negative. I hope in this review, you'll see the common thread among them. TLDR; There's a lot I like about this place, but lately, working here feels depressing. I would not let my friends work here, unless their life passion was to build quantum computers. 1) The people you work with (on IC work). These are absolutely some of the most amazing people I've met in my life. Everyone I've worked with directly is very intelligent, very high achieving, and passionate about their work. Many are leaders in their field. You'll learn what grit is by working with them. It is even more impressive that the egos are typically small. I've seen humility and kindness in practice. Friendliness and a willingness both to teach and to learn is very common here. I am constantly learning by chatting with people across the whole company, whether we work together or not. People are talented at explaining concepts at any level of understanding. I do believe that I've created professional -- and personal -- relationships that will last a very long time. The nature of the work is highly interdisciplinary (we have electrical+gateware engineers, hardware engineers, mechanical engineers, software+embedded SW engineers, fab engineers, physicists [experimental AND theory], device designers, cryo engineers ... and still less than 140 people!!). This often means many opportunities for collaborative work! 2) Rigor and high expectations. Most people are working on really cutting edge stuff. That is what keeps me excited every day I come in. This is the kind of place where edge cases (think, second or third order terms, whether in chip design or RF engineering) that normally can be ignored as "negligible" are starting to matter. Friends from wildly different domains have spoken to me with excitement about how an unexpected result challenged them to face problems that were typically ignored in other settings. This is a relatively academic environment. Employees constantly read papers, researching on their own or for their projects. They point out research they've discovered to other teams which might find it helpful. The standard for work tends to be high. It is intellectually demanding. I'll also say that many individuals have a good sense for the overall picture at the company -- what's important, when to move fast to test out an idea, versus when to refine. (I don't think management has the same good sense as ICs, at least on my team.) It's enjoyable working in an environment where you can trust your colleagues in that sense. 3) The work. If you are interested in quantum computing, this is a great place to settle in. 4) Growth. The combo of points 1+2 create a place where you will grow and learn rapidly, but you must take it upon yourself to do so.
Svantaggi
1) Decline of a previously innovative culture One year ago, I truly felt like I was witnessing the birth of innovations that would be written in history. I know it sounds dramatic, but regardless, that sensation was the best part of working at Rigetti. In the last 6 or so months, it's changed. The team was surveyed; the result: a high number of individuals felt that innovation was not valued by leadership. Some of this may be fallout from incredibly low morale. However, some of it is directly a result of management. Some teams do have exceptional managers, and I think those managers defend their employees to the upper powers. Regardless, somehow the culture is less innovative than it used to be. It is a huge disappointment to me, and I am less excited about work because of this change. 1.5) Unhealthy politics The politics are really pervasive for a company only ~100 people in size. Rapid, repeated org changes are just jokes to us now. I have to add this point here between 1 and 2 because there is so much context around my comments in the Cons section, and all of that context is politics. Fall: Leadership team forms, to manage the CEO. November: 10% of the company fired, 5% laid off. Following couple months, another ~10% quit (including some very valuable characters). Recently: leadership team disbanded, through demotions, firings, and resignations, all at the express command of or in protest of the CEO, our namesake, who would rather see the company burn than allow it to succeed without him. 2) Upper mangement. People openly joke about how bad management is. a) Management does not value individuals. When people started quitting at an alarming rate, management didn't respond by saying "Maybe we are doing something wrong", they reponded by saying "Time to start hiring again!" b) They don't know how to make people happy. I believe a major part of this is putting the smart people we have to work doing the things that they are good at, which also happen to be the things they enjoy doing. Instead, experts at X are forced to work on Y, even when there is plenty of X-type work to do. I've seen this pattern with at least 5 people, including myself. Now, it is a startup, and everyone should expect to work on things they don't already know how to do. I like that. What I'm talking about in this point is under utilizing incredible talent, and at the same time making someone work so long on something they're not interested in working on that eventually some people quit. c) Management does not take feedback well, let alone make improvements. There is real fear about giving feedback. When the option to give feedback anonymously was suddenly taken away, we felt like the purpose was for leadership (aka the CEO) to find out who the enemy was, not to open a learning discussion. However, again because of point 1 under Pros, feedback is nonetheless provided, time and time again. I haven't yet seen positive changes. An example relevant to points a) and c): I have repeatedly given specific feedback to my direct manager (you may imagine actionable feedback such as "please provide feedback to me within 5 days of the event which inspires it, so that I can best internalize it and improve upon it.") These requests were ignored or forgotten. 3) Demoralizing and scary HR practices A note: I do like my colleagues who are in HR currently. They aren't at fault for this, and I think they're doing their best to fix a broken or nonexistant system. It's hard to make progress when the small HR team gets recycled twice a year. a) The CEO will fire people (incl. executives) without involving HR at all. In fact, even middle management has tried to do this in the past. b) Layoffs are cast as "performance management" under extremely mixed messages that in the end made me believe the option for those employees to take a futile 3.5 week performance improvement plan was a ruse to hide financial difficulties. c) Pay ranges across the company vary wildly, since for a long time, there was no guideline regarding what could be offered to new hires. Still, base compensation is not usually competitive. You're expected to work here because you love the field and would do it for free. Better hope you can make it 10 years without getting fired, when those stocks might be worth something. Software engineers who can get a job here could make 40-100% more at other startups. d) Introduction of leveling system led to mass insult of the work force. I am glad that a leveling system was introduced at our company; better late than never. However, due to Point 3c, (i.e. we don't pay people what they're worth) managers were told to round down when leveling. Senior engineers of 20 years experience were demoted. I personally felt from the description of each level that I knew exactly where I stood. When I was given a level below that, I felt extremely demoralized. It reinforced the idea that management didn't appreciate how hard I was working, and how much I was pushing myself beyond the base expectations. When I met with my manager to further discuss my level assignment, I was met with a long winded explanation of levels that had nothing to do with my own contributions to the company. I know my experience wasn't unique.