The company is run by two ivy league kids prone to name-dropping, jargon, sports metaphors (ie "crushing it" and an insistent attention on "winning"), and hitting foam golf balls at that subset of people in the office with more work to do than time. By engaging in an open-ended quest to win in the education space, leadership eventually stumbled into a successful teacher support product, but has consistently failed to recognize and attribute value to those responsible for building the product. It's a rather cliche microcosm of the management/production divide that is crippling our country: leadership will squabble (consistently and judgmentally) over small compensation differences for workers, while not thinking twice about spending 5 or 6 figures on a brand consultant or a management expert. While the product lineup continues to improve and diversify, those making and delivering it are left to compete for limited resources while a revolving door of management types come in, get paid handsomely, alienate a few colleagues while trying to understand what defines the "education sector" and how to apply their prior experience, then leave.