Pluspunten
met a lot of people who were nice and seemed to care since it's a fully remote setting.
Minpunten
Constantly in limbo in regards to your schedule. You find out a week before the end of the month what hours you will be working, every single month no matter how long you have been working there. Nepotism is huge here and everyone knows somebody when they are getting promoted and hired. There are a few departments that have three coworkers that are family, pretty sure it explains itself. As well as firing people left and right out of the blue. The company cleared the whole implementation department and Leaders and Directors that have been there for years. I have seen coworkers become sheeps in regards to the growth aspect and do whatever they can to move up. Pay is super low compared to the industry average. The company has probably got rid of over 200 employees since I have been working here. Email staff to let them know people were let go due to "individual performance" and not business-related reasons. False hope in regards to moving up and small annual raises. Seeing great coworkers go weekly due to better opportunities since there is no communication at all between Managers and their staff. Would not recommend it to anyone that believes they owe themselves a lot and want to strive for a lot. Not a lot of growth opportunities. If fully remote and a paycheck is what you want, this is the place. If you are looking for a place where you can easily approach your leaders, don't work here. Coworkers let go for not meeting metrics that in no way shape and form correlate with the job performed.
Pluspunten
Great experience, team, and opportunity
Minpunten
None as of yet, have not been here long enough
Pluspunten
- Remote Work - Cool tech stack - Some great individual contributors
Minpunten
Personally, I definitely had a '1 star' worthy experience at DrFirst due to the toxicity of the leadership I interacted with. However, I was hesitant to actually rate DrFirst as a '1 star' here since my experience was limited to the cyber security team, and I don't think it's fair to suggest that all of the various teams within DrFirst are the same way. In my situation, I first encountered some of this toxicity on my 4th day at the company - where I was pulled into a 1 on 1 with senior security leadership, who proceeded to go on somewhat of a tangent about previous security personnel at DrFirst who they had terminated, and explicitly told me they had a '3 strike policy' and suggested they had no problem letting me go in the event I reached this ambiguous '3 strike' threshold (which was never defined). It's worth mentioning that I'm very aware that if someone doesn't do their job > they will eventually get terminated, that's a pretty widely accepted notion. But hearing these comments just 4 days after starting was pretty shocking. I was hoping this was somewhat of a one-off too, but this kind of language and management style that I perceived as heavily focused on termination risk and negative consequences rather than coaching and development persisted in just about every 1 on 1 over the course of the next month, which led me to realize I should probably get out sooner rather than later. In addition to some of this behavior directed towards me, senior security leadership would also regularly make questionable/not-so-positive comments in passing about broader company leadership (e.g., technology leadership) - in our 1 on 1s. I wasn't sure how to respond to some of these comments, but they were also somewhat of a theme in a lot of our 1 on 1 interactions. Another kind of crazy thing I experienced while at DrFirst was security leadership's use of Claude. I'm very pro-AI in the workplace setting (especially in the security engineering setting), but the way in which security leadership would try and leverage Claude and interpret Claude output was pretty shocking. In one instance, a security concern was escalated (by senior security leadership) based largely on Claude output. After additional investigation by individual contributors on the team, the issue was determined not to be a real security incident and appeared to stem from a misunderstanding of the model's output. That experience raised concerns for me about how AI-generated information was being evaluated before operational decisions were made and was just generally pretty wild to witness first-hand because of how trivial the hallucination was to decipher once individual contributors on the team actually saw what was going on. So, take the 'AI-first' attitude that is advertised with a grain of salt, as some of what is actually going on behind the scenes is kind of wonky. I want to emphasize one more time that I don't think my experience at DrFirst represents the company at large, and that I think there are tons of great individual contributors at DrFirst. My immediate counterparts on the security team were genuinely awesome to work with (veryyy smart and kind people), and my encounters with HR, IT, and other teams at the company were also really positive. Unfortunately, the immediate security leadership (composed of 1 VP at the time of posting) made my time here pretty unbearable, which resulted in me accepting an offer at another firm just 6 weeks after my first day.