Embark Veterinary Reviews

When I first joined Embark, it was a great place to work. You got to work with passionate scientists, veterinarians, and dog-loving people who really wanted to make a difference. Unfortunately, that version of the company doesn’t really exist anymore. Today, Embark is run by a CEO who lacks any form of leadership skills and consistently shows how unfamiliar he is with dogs, people, and Embark’s main product. Unfortunately, the CEO has also systematically rid the company of most of its experts. There is no strategic direction, at least not one that lasts more than a few months. Leadership is focused on short-term ideas that keep the company afloat for one more day. High turnover at the executive level has resulted in chaos for employees who don’t know how their role might change in a few weeks or months. Teams are told to launch products with little foresight or strategic vision, and then leadership is surprised if the product doesn’t perform well. This then means more layoffs. Embark went through five layoffs in about two years, reducing the size of the company to half of what it once was. Most of the employees who cared about the product and the mission are gone, whether through layoffs, being forced out, or leaving by choice due to how dysfunctional the org is. Other cons: Salary is not competitive with biotech in Boston in general.

Past employees have captured the issues best: “You can earn an MBA in how not to run a business by working at Embark.” “If not business meeting, why business-meeting-shaped?” Key themes: Constant reorganizations with little to no clear long-term plan. Strategy churn: middle management is asked to build multi-year roadmaps that rarely survive more than a few months before being scrapped. Executive turnover is high, and leadership quality seems unrelated to tenure. Meeting overload — most of them low-value. Focus on protecting margins through layoffs instead of driving growth through market understanding. Know the WARN Act: layoffs are often timed to minimize notice and remain WARN compliant. Innovative revenue ideas are often deprioritized in favor of low-revenue-potential projects. Other quotes from current and former employees reflect the broader culture: "The executive team is drinking the AI Kool-Aid without even glancing at the ingredients list." “[The CEO] hires and fires leaders like he knows what he’s doing!” (CEO approval rating is below 25% at time of writing.) “We were a small company, became a big company, and then shrank back down... But somehow kept the worst traits of both??” Additional concerns: Lack of demographic diversity compared to the city it’s based in (Boston). Employees who publicly criticize executives risk being targeted in reductions-in-force. Strategy often follows fads (e.g., “we need AI”) without vision or practical understanding. Executive team lacks domain-specific expertise and regularly demonstrates this lack of understanding in the form of company strategy. The company consistently talks about a commitment to science while making decisions that undercut it. Compensation and power are concentrated at the top. Leadership appears more focused on optics and financial engineering than on sustainable growth. Finally, if you are interviewing for an AI or ML role, the individual contributors and managers you meet will generally understand the field and can speak thoughtfully about when and how to apply emerging techniques. Gaps will shows up at the executive level. If you’re applying for a leadership role, press the executives hard on their vision. Not just the what, but the how and why. Get clarity before you sign anything. Bottom line: If you want to learn about dog genetics while working with genuinely great colleagues and don’t mind executive dysfunction, you’ll thrive here. But if you’re seeking clear strategy, stable leadership, or meaningful influence on business direction, consider the warning signs shared by many who’ve left before you.