4 Bewertungen von Mitarbeiter:innenkununu Prüfprozess
kununu Prüfprozess
4 Mitarbeiter:innen haben diesen Arbeitgeber mit durchschnittlich 4,1 Punkten auf einer Skala von 1 bis 5 bewertet.
Ihr Unternehmen?
kununu Prüfprozess
4 Mitarbeiter:innen haben diesen Arbeitgeber mit durchschnittlich 4,1 Punkten auf einer Skala von 1 bis 5 bewertet.
Purpose & product: The company has a meaningful mission, and the products are genuinely interesting and impactful.
Colleagues & team: I’ve worked with great people over the years. Collaboration in my environment was mostly constructive, professional, and human.
Change in principle: I generally see organizational change as positive and necessary—when it’s paired with real leadership and clear execution.
Compensation: I was satisfied with my compensation.
High responsibility, low empowerment (especially in leadership roles): As a leader, I often felt I carried a lot of accountability but had limited real influence—e.g., on budget, training, travel approvals, and sometimes even core people-development levers.
Slow decisions + unclear ownership: I was told to “push” for information and decisions, yet when I did, I sometimes got the message that I’m being annoying—or that the person I’m asking is “not in charge.” This lack of clear ownership makes decisions take far too long.
Opaque growth & promotion decisions: When development or promotion requests are declined, the reasons can feel inconsistent or “fabricated,” and there is often no credible Plan B beyond “try again next time.”
Politics over prioritization: In parts of the organization, political dynamics take too much space. It becomes more about managing narratives than solving problems, and prioritization often feels missing.
Uncertainty through people decisions: There is uncertainty created by personnel decisions that are not described as “layoffs,” but the outcome feels similar for teams and individuals—hurting trust and predictability.
“Inner circle” dynamic: Some higher management leaders appear to favor a small circle of “trusted” people. If you’re not part of that inner circle, you can feel ignored, treated as an interruption, and excluded from information, context, or influence.
Office/remote as a catch-all answer: I value being in the office, but it is sometimes communicated as the main solution to complex issues (quality, growth, collaboration). Presence can help, but it’s not a magic wand.
Make decision ownership and timelines explicit: Clarify who decides what (budget, training, travel, promotions, org changes) and set firm, transparent decision timelines.
Fix the promotion/growth system: Use clear criteria, consistent reasoning, and a real follow-up plan when the answer is “not now” (what’s missing, what to do next, by when).
Prioritization must be a leadership duty: Stop the “everything, immediately” mode. Leaders should actively reduce scope, sequence work, and protect focus.
Treat concerns as signal, not resistance: Create a culture where questions and risks are welcomed. Close the loop after workshops: what was heard, what will change, what won’t, and why.
Reduce politics by increasing transparency: Encourage cross-team collaboration through shared goals, visible priorities, and transparent problem-solving—less narrative management.
Communicate office/remote clearly and consistently: Provide stable guidance and avoid creating uncertainty. Use office presence as an enabler, not as the only lever.
In my direct environment, the atmosphere has often been strong: supportive colleagues, pragmatic cooperation, and high professional standards.
At the same time, I increasingly noticed inner resignation in some areas—driven by slow or unclear decisions, shifting narratives, and political behavior.
When people stop speaking up, problems surface later as quality issues, attrition, or missed delivery.
I met a lot of great people there who made it very enjoyable to work with
I experienced a shift in parts of leadership toward command & control: strong pressure to execute “now,” but not enough space for clarifying priorities, trade-offs, or the “why.”
As a leader, I often felt responsibility without empowerment—limited influence on key levers like budget, training, travel, and sometimes people development.
Some higher management leaders appear to favor a small circle of “trusted” people. If you’re not part of that inner circle, you can feel ignored, treated as an interruption, and excluded from information, context, or influence.
Major org changes are announced, but building the new structure (roles, interfaces, decision paths, prioritization mechanisms) often feels like an afterthought.
The “why” behind changes is not communicated enough, which leaves people feeling behind and disconnected.
Office/remote communication is often unclear, creating the feeling that the policy could change any moment.