Pros
Beautiful office campus, variety of food vendors and touch screen ordering technology in the cafeteria
Cons
When I joined, there were no established research plans, centralized research repositories, or qualitative data analysis tools (QDAS). I was added to projects without clarity on the purpose, goals, or expected outcomes of the research. Documentation was largely absent, and in some cases the only information provided was a Jira ticket with minimal detail. Given this lack of context, I asked clarifying questions to better understand the user and business problems being addressed. However, my requests for context were misinterpreted by the manager and team leads as a need for excessive guidance rather than as a standard part of onboarding and research preparation. As a result, the experience felt discouraging and negatively impacted my ability to onboard effectively. In UX research, asking questions is a necessary part of understanding scope, constraints, and objectives. In this environment, proactive questions, particularly from new team members, were occasionally interpreted as a lack of confidence or capability based on manager feedback rather than a normal and expected practice. Research impact was primarily measured using internal metrics that did not consistently align with widely accepted industry standards, which made it difficult to assess the effectiveness or outcomes of the work. The culture was generally not receptive to feedback or new ideas. Efforts to share suggestions or collaborate on process improvements were often met with defensiveness rather than open discussion. Project work frequently involved very long working sessions, often four hours, without a clear strategy, defined objectives, or actionable outcomes. This limited focus and overall effectiveness. Overall, opportunities and treatment appeared to be influenced more by educational background and internal relationships rather than by demonstrated skills or prior professional experience.