Whatever was good is now lost. - Project Coordinator WATG Employee Review

Positive environment with great coffee machine

A lot of projects with harsh deadlines

Disclaimer - the AC office is a recently acquired office, and I don't believe this office reflects the broader culture and experience at WATG. My experience in the Atlantic City office was a combination of genuine strengths and deeply rooted cultural issues. The merger brought several meaningful improvements that positively affected our workflow, including upgraded software and equipment, stronger vacation & HR policies, and expanded access to training and licensure reimbursement. These upgrades were needed and appreciated. The strongest part of the office was the staff themselves. My peers consistently demonstrated professionalism, teamwork, and genuine care for one another and they were the people keeping projects moving when communication or structure fell short. Several long tenured employees were dedicated and knowledgeable, and their commitment to the office’s legacy deserves recognition.

However many long standing cultural patterns continued unchanged after the merger. Communication from leadership was reactive and at times nonexistent. Information about expectations or staffing changes was not always shared which created confusion and fear that could have been avoided with clearer internal communication. Many conversations that should have been held openly with the staff were instead filtered through informal channels, and that contributed to a feeling of internal politics rather than transparent operations. The office culture often felt insular, resistant to change and shaped by habits that predated the merger. The interiors department illustrated many of these challenges. In practice the department operated as two separate groups, and employees had very different experiences depending on which internal team they worked with. Collaboration and delegation varied significantly. Some staff received constructive guidance and fair workloads, while others experienced exclusion or limited access to meaningful tasks. This unevenness existed because certain leaders did not engage consistently or collaboratively and it had a direct impact on morale, workflow quality and opportunities for professional growth. Leadership composition contributed to these imbalances. Senior leadership was primarily white, male and architectural. There are no interiors principals present in this office. This created a structural gap because interiors did not have dedicated representation at the leadership level. As a result it felt like the discipline was frequently underrepresented in discussions that shaped workflow and strategic decisions. This made it difficult for the interiors team to advocate for standards and resources and it contributed to the perception that interiors was secondary rather than integral. Onboarding was nonexistent. New hires were expected to navigate systems and office expectations largely on their own. Combined with limited communication this led to a difficult adjustment period for many of the new folks. Workload distribution also varied greatly and assignments were not always aligned with skill sets or development goals. Some staff carried heavy workloads while others had limited involvement and there was inconsistent enforcement of remote work expectations. These patterns made it difficult to build a sense of fairness or shared purpose. During my time in the office, concerns were repeatedly raised about the conduct and management style of a senior interiors team member. These concerns related to communication, delegation, and the impact on team cohesion and morale. From my perspective these concerns were not addressed proactively or consistently which allowed the issues to continue. When leadership does not engage meaningfully with repeated feedback about a manager’s conduct, it creates long term cultural and operational risks. Several employees who ultimately left the firm cited challenges within this reporting structure as a contributing factor. I also experienced an attempt to resolve concerns through a direct conversation that was presented as an informal meeting. Once the meeting began I was unexpectedly given a pre-prepared disciplinary document without prior indication. The lack of transparency in that process raised concerns about the consistency and fairness of performance management practices on that team. I also observed sensitive staffing matters being handled in open office areas where nearby colleagues could clearly hear what was happening. This approach felt abrupt and unnecessarily public and it did not reflect best practices for protecting confidentiality or employee dignity. The physical workspace itself contributed to the sense of stagnation. The office and the materials library felt outdated compared to any other modern office. This reinforced a perception that the office was not evolving at the same pace. Turnover among newer staff was noticeably high. Although turnover can be influenced by many factors the pattern suggested deeper issues related to culture, mentorship and long term career development. I saw several talented and genuinely kind employees leave because they did not see opportunities for growth and the lack of consistent leadership engagement made it difficult to envision a stable long term path. The result was a cycle in which emerging talent did not stay long enough to build momentum or raise the overall level of design quality. The culture often felt shaped by interpersonal alliances rather than transparent processes. Employees who were not within certain circles sometimes found themselves excluded from opportunities or from information that would have helped them succeed. This type of internal hierarchy can create an environment where navigating personalities becomes more important than understanding expectations. Protecting individuals whose leadership style repeatedly raises concerns does not benefit a department. It reinforces an outdated internal structure that undermines retention and performance. The design work reflected these internal dynamics. Without consistent mentorship, cross disciplinary feedback, or broad collaborative structure, parts of the design output lacked the innovation and refinement expected of a global design firm. It was telling that high level interiors work was going to be frequently routed to the Wimberly Office, and that many designers seeking growth eventually find stronger opportunities outside this location.