Great Company - Data Scientist II Raisa Energy Employee Review

Wonderful leadership team in both offices

N/A for Denver and Cairo

Benefits - Full health and dental coverage from day one Colleagues - A few people genuinely made the effort to welcome new hires

Cross-Cultural Alignment – With most of the team in Egypt and stakeholders in the U.S. norms around candor and feedback clashed. What was constructive in one context came across as blunt or evasive in the other. This mismatch delayed decisions and weakened trust. Feedback – Leadership claimed feedback was the company’s #1 cultural value but in practice direct questions or suggestions were treated as negativity. Instead of actionable conversations, feedback often turned into backchannel suspicion or dismissal. The message was clear: if you can’t accept that version of “feedback,” you won’t last here. Politics – Conversations sounded supportive but were often followed by backchanneling and quiet maneuvering. This was the norm and it made collaboration unsafe. Questions were encouraged in theory but not in practice. When I asked, they were often dismissed or framed as negativity. Later, I was told I ‘wasn’t asking enough.’ The contradiction made it impossible to know what was expected and reinforced the lack of honest communication. Career Growth – Titles changed with tenure, not responsibility. Unless you were in the founding group advancement was not realistic. Tooling – Questions about tool choices or suggestions for improvements were labeled as constant criticism. That defensiveness blocked modernization and left outdated workflows in place. Reference Checks and Accountability – The CEO contacted decade-old LinkedIn connections not listed as references and did so without consent. Some of the questions asked would generally be considered inappropriate in a U.S. hiring context. Later leadership admitted something had gone wrong in the background check process but blamed the process instead of taking responsibility. That sequence — crossing boundaries, avoiding direct conversation, and then shifting blame — reinforced the lack of accountability and trust at the leadership level. Compensation – Peers received bonus and equity details up front. I was told “we’ll discuss later.” That discussion never came which signaled the role was not meant to be long-term. First-Day Tone – On the first day leadership said they were concerned I might try to do everything myself based only on a short interview. From then on every meeting felt like an evaluation for reasons to exit rather than support to succeed. Communication – For such a small organization day-to-day interactions were surprisingly guarded. Attempts to start conversations were often met with silence or avoidance. It created an atmosphere where collaboration felt forced instead of natural. Business Direction – On the surface it looks like stability because the company has been around since 2014 and still has funding. But what is missing is an actual customer base. Investors are not customers and only speaking to them once a year is not a business model. Despite claims of “doing something different,” the reality is that it operates more like an investment vehicle than a functioning business. Without customers to serve or revenue to anchor decisions, priorities drift and roles end up focused on internal reshuffling and optimization rather than tangible growth. Management Style – My manager was based in Argentina and instead of giving feedback directly she regularly asked others about my interactions and performance. I only learned this later. When issues were raised directly they were reframed as dishonesty instead of being discussed openly. This reinforced the broader pattern of backchanneling and mistrust rather than building open communication. Psychological Safety – After the first week every day felt like I was coming in to be fired. The constant suspicion and lack of direct feedback made it hard to focus on work and impossible to build trust. Leadership claimed feedback was a top priority but in practice it was toxic positivity paired with backchannel criticism. Treatment of Employees – Employees were often treated as the source of problems even when the real issues were structural. Instead of addressing gaps in direction, tooling, and trust, leadership redirected blame onto individuals. The persistent mistrust and misplaced blame made it clear the environment was not sustainable. If you’re considering this role, know that the pattern is clear: questions are reframed as negativity, structural problems are blamed on individuals and exits are justified by process excuses. Unless the company builds real accountability and a customer base U.S. hires will keep running into the same wall.