Pros: Sigma is hitting VC and sales goals. Working with my close team is nice. People who push hard get rewarded.

Cons: They’re really focused on cutting costs to get the next funding. Moral on some teams seem a bit low. Similar to other fast pace startup Sigma is moving fast.

Pros: - Growing business - Good (but not exceptional) compensation and benefits - Unlimited PTO (on paper)

Cons: - Excessive control and oversight, coupled with a lack of autonomy and independent thought. The co-founders of the company tend to involve themselves in a lot of projects (unfortunately, on the final stages), neglecting the focus on strategic, high-level issues as they should. They also fail to nurture their staff. Instead, both of them chose to contribute to the code. - Immature management style. Instead of concentrating on the necessary tasks, a significant portion (though not all) of the company managers and senior employees strive to please the co-founders. - Absence of personal and professional growth — the career ladder remains intentionally ambiguous, and the feedback from management lacks practicality. Professional advancement hinges on project completion rather than impact or influence itself. - Bad company culture. Recent abrupt departures (including layoffs) have created voids in both the company's culture and its org structure. Core teams are overworked and demotivated, some of the team members explore opportunities elsewhere. - Lack of good product management. Much like the co-founders, the PMs lean towards the other important tasks rather than setting a clear vision for their domains.

Pros: Free lunch. Kitchens are stocked with a lot of snacks.

Cons: The leadership is quite insecure, which causes a management style that is opaque, impulsive, and borderline fraudulent. Posturing to compensate replaces effectively organizing people around a mission. Part of the insecurity emanates from the fact that Sigma is a late-stage startup without much to show in revenue (minuscule compared to what it burns) and, therefore, still highly volatile. The other part is inherent in that the cofounders are hired by a founding VC firm (SHV) and lack a vision of their own (or control, for that matter). They are essentially hired engineering help, which turns out quite mediocre when looked closely at the code. This lack of vision and control, combined with technical shallowness, feeds the volatility. The CEO, a first-timer, has a supporting role in the company. He doesn't command much respect from the founding investors and has no real power, which results in, unsurprisingly, occasional anger outbursts and contributes to the ongoing cacophony. There is no hope for a successful exit with the current leadership that would benefit an average employee.