Nice coworkers but can't recommend leadership - Avaliação de funcionários no cargo de Consultant na empresa PartnerComm, Inc.

- Immediate opportunity to work with big-name clients: Within a few weeks of starting at the company, I was on calls with HR leadership at Fortune 500 companies and creating work for them. That is a fantastic and rare opportunity for a young consultant. - Family-like culture and fantastic co-workers: Most of my co-workers were sweet, likable, hard-working and easy to work with. The family that owns the company invites employees into their lives and after building relationships with them treats them with love and like family. - Loving owners and leadership: Kind of already mentioned it, but the family that runs the company genuinely loves and cares for their employees, and considers them family. For employees who are willing to invest in relationships with them, the reward is a pure, positive, and rewarding relationship with leadership. - Amazing unlimited PTO policy: Speaks for itself! - Small enough for you to be able to stand out and not get lost in a corporate sea of employees: Like I mentioned above, within a few weeks of starting I got to be creating work and relating to clients directly. Everyone in the office, including leadership, knew me and was ready to invest in me as an employee. - Abundant opportunity to learn and try new things: The environment is extremely rewarding for those that step up and are enthusiastic about taking risks to try new things. When I did this, I was met with grace, and ample opportunity for advancement and new responsibilities. I learned SO MUCH during my time there and felt that leadership was sincerely personally invested in my growth, which I am so grateful for. -Competitive pay for consultants just starting out The pay was generous for a young, in-experienced consultant, and they were EXTREMELY generous when it came to bonuses.

- Leadership can struggle with work/life boundaries with employees: The family that runs the company demonstrates extreme commitment to client satisfaction, which has contributed greatly to the company's success and is very admirable. However, at times, they offer things to clients without consulting the employees who will be the ones responsible for providing the work, making employees work extra hours/make sacrifices without warning. Leadership will also frequently ask employees to take the time to help them with personal tasks, not included in their job description: Obviously, it is their company and they technically have every right to do this. However, employees are evaluated heavily based on billable hours and time spent completing personal tasks for leadership is not billable, so it can be frustrating for employees. Note about this con: When I worked there, I was often asked to complete these "personal tasks," and while it was discouraging at times, leadership made their appreciation very apparent and I knew that they would not count those non-billable hours against me. How much this con bothers an employee really is up to them, and I wouldn't say it is disqualifying at all of the company. Additionally, employees do get to reap the rewards of leadership's practice of going above and beyond for clients, and leadership is good about acknowledging them when they do. - Leadership can work inefficiently at times: Often, despite a client being satisfied with the work we had done for them, leadership would say they weren't satisfied and make us redo the deliverable. This would result in even more phenomenal work, which is awesome to be a part of, but because these updates would not be requested by the client, they were considered non-billable. This loses the company A LOT of money and also decreases employees billable hours significantly. Leadership heavily evaluates employees billable hours as well as company profit when offering bonuses or letting people go, so this does inefficiency does come back to bite employees. - Strict in-office policy for Dallas employees (no WFH flexibility): The only exception to this is when an employee is sick, which leadership is very understanding about. But, if an employee is sick, they either have to work from home, or use PTO hours. - Nepotism is apparent at times: Most of the C-Suite positions at the company are filled by leadership's children, which is fine and they have every right to have it this way. Plus, their kids are also some of the most hardworking people I have ever met, and make abundant sacrifices for the success of the company. However, at times, their parents gave them WFH or schedule flexibility they did not offer other employees. Also, there are differences in the way leadership responds to pushback or disagreement when it comes from one of their kids, compared to non-related employees.

Remote work environment (for some) and broad exposure to cool companies.

The organization suffers from chronic leadership, operational, and governance issues that have persisted for years despite significant employee turnover and repeated feedback. One of the most notable challenges is the concentration of leadership among family members. While family-owned businesses can be highly successful, this structure can make objective decision-making, accountability, and constructive dissent more difficult. As a result, decisions often appear driven by personal dynamics rather than clear business rationale. The company lacks the operational discipline necessary to support sustainable growth. Employees are routinely assigned responsibilities outside their expertise without the training, resources, or support required to succeed. What is often framed as “opportunity” is, in reality, a substitute for proper planning and organizational structure. The result is a constant cycle of fire drills, shifting priorities, and unnecessary chaos. Career progression is limited. Employees frequently absorb additional responsibilities, manage larger clients, and contribute at higher levels for years without corresponding changes in title or advancement. Many employees effectively perform at a level above their title while receiving little formal recognition for it. This disconnect becomes particularly apparent during workforce reductions, where titles often fail to reflect actual contributions and scope. Leadership consistently overcommits to clients and sells capabilities that internal teams are then expected to deliver regardless of available resources. Teams are left scrambling to fulfill promises that should never have been made in the first place. Rather than addressing root causes, the organization often relies on its strongest employees to absorb the impact through longer hours and increased workloads. The culture is deeply political and increasingly cliquish. Employees quickly learn that success is influenced as much by proximity to leadership and internal relationships as it is by performance. Transparency is limited, decision-making is inconsistent, and accountability is unevenly applied. Another recurring concern is the inconsistency with which performance and personnel decisions appear to be handled. Employees often feel that mistakes are not evaluated uniformly across the organization. In some cases, individuals with strong track records and years of positive contributions seem to face disproportionately severe consequences for relatively minor issues, while others are afforded significantly more latitude. This creates an environment where employees become more focused on navigating personalities and politics than on doing great work. The result is a culture of uncertainty. Employees frequently question whether performance alone is enough to ensure success within the organization. Several highly capable professionals—including long-tenured employees with families and significant institutional knowledge—have left the company through terminations, restructurings, or voluntary departures that many employees viewed as avoidable losses. Each departure further erodes confidence in leadership and reinforces the perception that contributions are not consistently valued. The company is exceptionally effective at recruiting talented people and remarkably ineffective at retaining them. Many employees join believing they can help introduce structure, improve processes, and elevate the organization. Most eventually conclude that the underlying issues are cultural and systemic rather than operational. No amount of individual talent, patience, or effort is enough to overcome them. Particularly concerning is the treatment of creative talent. Designers are expected to play a critical role in client delivery while often receiving less influence, visibility, and respect than other disciplines. Their contributions are frequently undervalued despite being central to the company’s output. Perhaps the strongest indicator of the organization’s health is the level of disengagement among its workforce. Current employees are actively exploring opportunities elsewhere, not because they lack commitment or capability, but because they have lost confidence that meaningful change is possible. The company continues to attract exceptional people, but too often burns them out, pushes them out, fires them randomly, or convinces them to leave.