Pros
I worked at MassChallenge for several years, and I say with complete sincerity that it made me a better person. It made me a harder worker, made me more aware and appreciative of people, places, and circumstances I was never exposed to before, and changed my value system for the better. And I firmly believe that I got these things from MC because of what I gave it — honest effort, open-mindedness, and a true desire to learn and grow. The organization has a great mission… one that is very easy to get behind day in and day out. Everyone knows that. But what most people don’t know, and what I can tell you from direct, significant experience, is that it is the rare place where you can work on yourself as much as you can work on a mission. And for that I am forever grateful. If you had told me on my first day at MC how much more talented, prepared, aware, focused, and driven I would be on the day I left for the last time, I’m not sure I would have believed you. I think this is why it pains me so much to read some of these very negative and critical reviews. Below I’ll go through a few of the main criticisms of MC, and I’ll rebut the (many) plainly false, vitriolic, and unfounded ones. But they are certainly not all false. No organization is perfect, and MC is no exception. What is easy to lose sight of though, particularly as a disgruntled recently ex-employee, I’d imagine, is that MassChallenge is a very young organization trying to do something that has quite literally never been done before in history. Think about that for a moment. No one, to this point, has ever created a truly global network of entrepreneurs and those that support entrepreneurs. No one has ever tried to figure out a way to get every dreamer in every corner of the earth access to the resources he or she needs. No one has ever set out to actually make a dent in the global economic ecosystem by empowering those who want to change things for the better. Now I am not saying that MC has done or necessarily even will do any of these things — only time will tell. What I am saying is that of course there are going to be bumps in the road, of course leadership is not going to know what to do at each and every hurdle they come across, of course it’s not going to be exceedingly clear what you as an employee are supposed to be doing to help at any given moment in time, of course they are going to need to cater to a certain extent to corporate funders (also known as the very people who allow MC to exist in the first place), of course your manager isn’t going to know exactly what’s going on at any given moment… and I could go on. The point: if you value certainty, if you value huge amounts of structure and role clarity, if you value someone holding your hand at all times telling you what to do and if you are doing said thing well, if you value having an objective that HAS been attempted before in human history, than maybe MassChallenge isn’t the place for you. And that is fine. Just don’t try to bury the organization on this review board because either MC is not what you thought it was or because you are disappointed in yourself. They say “a few bad apples spoils the bunch,” and nowhere is that more clear than in these reviews. That is really a shame.
Cons
As for the common critiques of the organization, I’d like to share my thoughts. I see three or four main themes, and so I’ll attempt to group the many negative comments on this thread as such, for clarity’s sake. Everything is my own words, except for quoted material, which was taken directly from another review on this page. Theme 1: High turnover/ burnout / employee fatigue In my opinion, a fair criticism of MC is that not all employees have a similar workload. Having worked there for several years and being a generally outgoing person, I knew many people who worked there and had a decent sense of the workload of many colleagues. It’s just not very even across the board. I knew a very small handful of people (probably the ones commenting here) that truthfully were being overworked at times— asked to stay late or arrive early, asked to cover events or tasks they probably shouldn’t have had to, working 60+ hours at times... all of that. Stuff that is not in the proverbial 'MC handbook.' But this was a very small number of people. A few of these people tried to fix the situation, and quit when they realized it just wasn’t going to work long-term, but it really hurts me to read the stuff on here claiming that it is an issue across the board because that is so far from the case. There are parties and hangouts and coffee breaks and long lunches aplenty at MC… I think the leadership realizes that those things are at times well-earned. There are many, many employees who work 40 hours and some that work less than that. There is an unlimited paid vacation policy, which admittedly can be a double-edged sword. But the vast majority of the staff I knew took plenty and appropriate advantage of the policy. It is the very, very small minority of the staff that is “burnt out” or fatigued, and unfortunately they are somewhat of a vocal minority on here. I completely agree that employee burnout is a terrible thing that shouldn’t exist at all, but to claim that it’s a common occurrence around the organization or that “working conditions are generally poor with employees obliged to work long and unsociable hours” is a completely generalized farce, and whoever wrote it knows it. Shame on you. There’s a lot about turnover on here. Someone mentioned that “key employees are lost on a weekly basis.” Again, and this one is actually objectively measurable, this is just not the case. It’s very easy to vent on the internet and type things that are not true, but please keep in mind that other people read this stuff and might believe it. Besides, key employees leaving is not necessarily the end of the world — it happens. Key employees might, in fact, be replaceable. Key employees may have actually had a successful, meaningful, and valuable tenure at the company and, strictly for themselves, feel like it’s time to move on. MC does not need to be a place for every single employee to have a decades-long career. That is completely unrealistic. This organization is less than ten years old. If you want a job where you know you can push papers around for 40 years and no one will say anything, go work at an insurance company. Theme 2: Lack of growth opportunities I think those who complain about lack of growth opportunities at MC probably define the term as something along the lines of having their title changed by four letters and $7,000 added to their salary every five years until retirement. If that’s your definition, then, yes, there is a lack of clear growth opportunity at MC. I know I sound like a broken record, but MC is a unique place — it’s a very small (roughly 80 global employees I believe as of 2018) company with a novel mission where everybody is almost always trying to figure things out on the fly, because often times there is no other option. Employees are often asked to do different things at different times because new challenges constantly arise. I personally would call that a growth opportunity. I have seen a person go from intern to executive because of performance but also because of passion, dedication, and positivity. I’ve seen colleagues get raises and title changes because they decided to complain less and work more. But in fairness I have also seen hard-working and talented people leave because the way they wanted to grow just didn’t exist at the company. It happens. Again, it’s a very young and relatively small organization with no cookie cutter path, no scheduled raises just for breathing, no cut and dry title progression. I think it’s one of the great things about the place — if the opportunity is there, you can sure as hell take it. If it’s not there, move on. Don’t try to bury a great place just because they didn’t have a 35-year plan laid out for you in black and white. Apologies on their behalf. Theme 3: Lack of mission clarity, mission as “moving target”, MassChallenge is not your local bank or office supply company. Maybe there is no crystal clear over-arching strategy because THERE IS NO CRYSTAL CLEAR OVER-ARCHING STRATEGY FOR BUILDING THE FIRST GLOBAL ACCELERATOR NETWORK. I am enjoying writing all of this way less than I anticipated, mostly because at this point I’m just pretty sad. To anyone writing these negative reviews — think about what you are doing. Because you had some amount of a negative experience, probably mostly because of you, you are trying to ruin the reputation of a truly honest, altruistic, and ambitious organization and actively dissuading potentially great people from working there. It’s almost mind-boggling. Yes, I understand that people have had bad experiences working at MC, and that the organization can improve in a number of areas. But please think before you vent. You know who you are hurting, which is bad enough, but who are you even helping by posting these completely negative reviews? A lot of this stuff is just completely false and a ton of it is in no way helpful to a prospective employee because it is so rare or specific that there is a tremendously low chance it will apply to someone hoping to work there. A lot of it is just plainly vindictive as well. Alright, a few honorable mention criticisms on here before we close. These ones are particularly gut-wrenching.
