Pros
Smart, hardworking individual contributors across teams Mission driven messaging that sounds compelling from the outside Generally collegial coworkers doing the best they can within constraints
Cons
EAB has a fundamental mismatch between what it claims to value (impact, ownership, innovation) and how it actually rewards people. Compensation is consistently below market, especially for high skill, high impact roles. This isn’t a case of being slightly conservative, it is materially uncompetitive, even after factoring in bonuses or long-term narratives about “growth” or “mission.” Top performers are paid similarly to average ones, which quickly disincentivizes excellence. The performance review process is opaque, slow, and largely disconnected from real outcomes. Delivering outsized impact does not reliably translate into recognition, promotions, or meaningful raises. Reviews feel more like justification exercises constrained by preset budgets than genuine evaluations of contribution. Merit is flattened. Exceptional work is acknowledged verbally but rarely rewarded structurally. Advancement depends more on timing, manager advocacy, and organizational politics than on objective results. Over time, this leads to attrition of high performers and retention of those optimized for the system rather than outcomes. Leadership messaging emphasizes growth and innovation, but compensation and review mechanics signal risk aversion and cost containment above all else.