Good pay scale - Customer Support Executive bei Raft: Mitarbeiterbewertung

awesome product market fit, you feel appreciated for your work, you can wear multiple hats, travel around the country/world for conferences and get togethers, and work/life balance is good

don't get to see colleagues as much because of remote work

- Smart & mission driven peers who genuinely care about improving global supply chain processes - Interesting problem space (AI + logistics + customs) with strong early customer interest - Exposure to enterprise customers and complex regulatory workflows

TLDR: - Extremely toxic & political culture that has worsened over time - Leadership driven by ego and internal infighting rather than strategy or accountability - Lack of clear career paths, role definition, and fair compensation as responsibilities expand - Inconsistent leadership communication and follow through - Culture increasingly discourages honest feedback and labels valid concerns as “negativity” - Significant reliance on employee goodwill and unpaid emotional/operational labor - Promotions and title changes not consistently matched with scope, accountability, or pay Full Review: I joined Raft in its early days and spent several years helping build the company through critical growth phases. As one of the early Customer Success hires, my role expanded far beyond its original scope, spanning customer success, customs subject matter expertise, internal enablement, operational support, and cross functional work with product, sales, and leadership. Like many early employees, I went above and beyond because I believed in the mission, wanted the company to succeed, and was promised, as many were, significant growth opportunities. That meant taking on work that was highly visible externally but often invisible internally, without clear recognition or compensation alignment. Ultimately, I was pushed out in a way that felt disproportionate and extreme, including being subjected to false & misleading narratives that leadership allowed to stand despite clear evidence to the contrary. I won’t detail those events here, but the experience made it clear how quickly leadership will permit reputational harm when it serves internal politics rather than fairness or truth, even for long tenured employees. As the company scaled, it became increasingly clear who had actually built and carried the organization and equally clear that many of those foundational contributors have since left. What remains is a leadership team that appears more focused on ego and internal politics than on retaining institutional knowledge or supporting the people responsible for execution. The result has been a revolving door of new hires, many of whom are unaware of the deeper issues driving attrition. Talented employees are routinely overworked and undercompensated, with the expectation that loyalty, passion, or verbal appreciation should substitute for fair pay and sustainable workloads. A “thank you” (if you’re lucky to get one) does not offset systemic underinvestment. At the same time, hiring and retention increasingly favor agreement over competence, quietly filtering out dissent and reinforcing poor decision making through a culture of “yes” voices. One of the most concerning cultural shifts has been leadership’s response to feedback. There is far more scrutiny on how feedback is delivered, particularly when it challenges leadership, than on the substance of what is being raised. Protecting leadership egos consistently takes precedence over accountability. Certain leaders are permitted to publicly lose their temper or behave unprofessionally in company wide Slack channels or meetings without consequence. When employees raise concerns or attempt to file complaints, they are often reframed as the problem because leadership is “under stress.” This ignores the reality that those actually responsible for execution are operating under constant pressure as well with the added expectation that they remain perfectly measured and careful not to upset leadership. The resulting double standard is deeply entrenched and demoralizing. Despite messaging around transparency and psychological safety, the internal reality is increasingly political and toxic. Anonymous employee surveys, which should surface systemic issues, are instead treated with suspicion. In my own 1:1 conversations with management, there were explicit comments speculating about who may have written critical feedback rather than discussions focused on what the feedback revealed. This signals that anonymity is not respected and that honesty carries personal risk. No matter how tightly leadership attempts to control the narrative, the ongoing chaos and inconsistency in decision making are visible across the company. With so many issues left unaddressed, employees often half jokingly question whether leadership is actively undermining the business. A reflection of how little confidence remains in strategic direction. Leadership projects cockiness but it's rooted in the work of others rather than demonstrated leadership skill or experience. SLT meetings are widely viewed as chaotic and unproductive, often compared internally to a circus coming to town rather than a strategic forum and have become a source of humor rather than confidence in leadership’s direction. If company strategy continues to prioritize ego protection over coherent vision, the long term outcome is predictably bleak. Sustainable success requires humility, self awareness, and a willingness to hear uncomfortable truths. There are still many smart, capable people at Raft who care deeply about the mission. However, leadership’s tolerance for problematic behavior at the executive level further undermines trust. There is a recognized pattern of dismissive or avoidant behavior toward women from certain senior leadership that has been openly discussed and implicitly accepted. Rather than addressing it, I was coached to adjust my communication style to accommodate that bias. A clear signal that employees are expected to adapt to executive shortcomings instead of leaders being held accountable. Notably, many former employees go on to succeed in significantly stronger roles after leaving. This is not because Raft provided exceptional structure or development, but because talented individuals were forced to operate without clear direction, consistent vision, or adequate support and still delivered. In many cases, the environment diminishes confidence rather than builds it, leaving high performers underpaid, stretched thin, and questioning their value until they realize elsewhere how much they were worth all along. My criticism is not of my peers or the problem space, but of leadership that practices political tactics that undervalue the very people who built the company and absolutely destroyed a culture that was once amazing.