A nieve, toxic company with no care for their employees - Operations Manager Conference Catalysts Employee Review

Fantastic benefits with unmatched flexibility. Strong emphasis on employee engagement.

Differences in work styles across departments can sometimes make the departments feel more different than they are the same.

The only thing that makes this place bearable is the people working below the CEO. The team members are kind, capable, and doing their absolute best despite the chaos above them. You’ll gain a ton of experience — not because there’s great training or structure, but because you’ll end up doing the work of two or three people at once. The projects themselves can be interesting and fulfilling when leadership isn’t micromanaging or rewriting history. Your coworkers will become your lifeline — they’re the only reason this place hasn’t completely fallen apart.

If the CEO were held to the same performance standards as employees, a PIP might focus on areas such as: - Difficulty taking full accountability for management decisions - Excessive micromanagement of teams - Misrepresenting facts or selectively presenting information to control outcomes - Holding employees responsible for workloads beyond reasonable expectations - Failing to staff teams adequately to meet operational needs - Creating an environment where HR and other leadership have limited ability to intervene - Overlooking safety and professional boundaries Punitive behavior began after a hurricane left me without power, running water, or internet for five days. The Monday after the hurricane was a company holiday, and I was asked to work because my power had just returned—but I declined, and that is when challenges with management began. While I was not penalized for that unplanned absence, three weeks later I took approved planned time off, following all company procedures. Yet, during my PIP and end-of-year review, I was accused of taking “excessive time off” and “burdening colleagues.” The CEO was not present during my PIP or review meeting, and when I requested examples from my direct supervisor to course correct—the person who technically authored the review—she explained that these claims came from the CEO and she would need to consult with him. About a week later, she reported that the CEO’s “lesson learned” was that he needed to keep better documentation. It wasn’t until 2–3 weeks later that ‘examples’ were produced, but they were inaccurate and mostly drawn from the hurricane period or other situations that did not occur during my approved time off. None of the concerns raised actually reflected my planned absence, yet they were presented as if they did. When I presented documented proof that the claims were inaccurate, I was called into a meeting with the entire leadership team. The meeting appeared to be an attempt to challenge my perspective, but the facts supported my position, leaving leadership to back-track and pass my questions off to each other. I received an apology acknowledging that leadership could have handled time off approvals differently, but I did not receive any acknowledgment or apology for how I was being treated; instead, they simply took extra care in approving and declining time off going forward, which did not benefit me or other employees. My lesson learned is that setting reasonable boundaries—like declining to work on a holiday, protecting your evenings, or expressing discomfort about certain travel—can result in additional scrutiny or extra review. I was not confrontational; I was simply trying to act in a way that protected my safety and boundaries. No one internally could intervene. HR and other leadership were constrained by the fact that the CEO has the final say. Employees quickly learn that questioning or challenging him—even reasonably—can put them in a difficult position, leaving those experiencing issues with little support. The company’s “unlimited time off” policy is inconsistent. Some employees can simply add vacation to the shared calendar, while others must submit formal requests and are questioned or guilted for using earned time off. There is no consistency or transparency in how these policies are enforced, creating unnecessary stress and confusion. Conference Managers routinely carry workloads meant for two or three people while being micromanaged and closely monitored by leadership that has not increased staffing to meet workloads. Employees are blamed if things aren’t done fast enough or perfectly, despite handling more than a reasonable workload. At the end of each year, leadership boasts about the unit’s “growth,” highlighting one or two new hires while overlooking the fact that multiple employees left due to burnout or dissatisfaction. The reality is that the unit constantly struggles to meet growing demands with insufficient support, but leadership prefers to celebrate appearances rather than address underlying issues. The culture could be strong if the CEO embraced accountability and consistency instead of prioritizing control. Until that happens, employees are left to navigate unreasonable expectations, unclear policies, and a culture where advocating for reasonable boundaries can result in negative consequences.