Pros
- Executive leadership is visible and transparent, particularly in the post-spin-off phase, with clear articulation of long-term strategy. - Values do actually mean something and executive leadership is very transparent. - The company is actively investing in internal capabilities, including the formation of a fully in-house agency to improve speed, ownership, and quality of delivery. - Strong individual contributors exist across design, engineering, and emerging technology, many of whom are highly capable and eager to modernize systems and processes.
Cons
- Amidst the growing pains and maturing, execution breaks down at the lower middle-management layer. The rapid consolidation and restructuring results in managers who do not have the knowledge or skillset to understand what their teams are actually executing. - Significant technical and experience debt has accumulated due to historically over-leveraged and high-cost agency engagements. This has resulted in fragmented systems, inconsistent quality, and slower iteration cycles. - Legacy operating models remain in place. For example, digital and design functions are still under marketing rather than a true digital product or platform structure (to be fair this is an expected step towards full operational maturity - but still a con at the current moment - Certain teams carry disproportionate political influence despite uneven design maturity. These roles are held by individuals with primarily business backgrounds, which is very obvious - leading to gaps in craft leadership, technical fluency and respect. - In emerging technology areas, there tends to be alot of self-promotion from these same teams who speak as if they are SME's, despite the presence of many contributors who are orders of magnitude more advanced in practical experience and execution. Sometimes it's comical to see how a 'concept' is presented when a whole team is leagues ahead and just consider it part of their workflow.