Pros
The only real value at ICW comes from the people not in leadership — the HR, Payroll, Recruiting, and Learning teams who consistently hold the organization together. These employees are collaborative, resourceful, and genuinely committed to doing good work in spite of the environment they’re placed in.
Cons
The leadership culture within HR is defined by a striking level of disconnection — and, more concerning, indifference. Major decisions are consistently made by individuals far removed from the day-to-day work. Those at the top rarely seek input from the people actually performing the tasks, and show little curiosity about what teams need to succeed. It is hard to overstate how demotivating it is to watch decisions being made by leadership who neither understand the work nor demonstrate interest in learning it. There is a pervasive feeling that leadership does not care about the wellbeing, workload, or career development of the employees keeping things running. Workloads are ignored. Capacity concerns are brushed aside. High performers are stretched far beyond reason with no meaningful support. When employees advocate for themselves, the response is dismissive at best and contradictory at worst. Leadership’s disconnect was also on full display during a recent restructuring. An entire team was gathered for what was framed as a meeting about a “new vision,” only to discover at the very end that the purpose of the meeting was to inform them they were being laid off, as well as many of their roles reappearing later at higher salaries. The rest of the department was later told that these employees were treated with “respect,” even though the experience reflected the opposite. The lack of transparency and empathy in that moment revealed how deeply out of touch leadership is with the human impact of their decisions. Leadership also demonstrated a clear double standard in their hiring practices — publishing detailed job requirements, then disregarding those same criteria when selecting a higher-paid external hire who did not meet several of the posted expectations. This choice was made despite those qualifications and capabilities already being fully available internally. It reflects a pattern of leadership opting to overspend on external hires rather than acknowledge or address the deeper issues within their own department. It is no coincidence that HR has the highest turnover and lowest engagement in the company. That is what happens in a department where leadership remains detached, unaccountable, and comfortable making decisions without regard for the people expected to carry them out.