Thesis Reviews

I was the first (and likely the last) barista Thesis HQ has ever had. After 20 years in the coffee industry, this role marked the first time I was paid a livable wage, and I was genuinely excited to bring my experience and passion to a company that seemed eager to support hospitality. In the beginning, the experience was overwhelmingly positive. I felt supported by my direct manager and most coworkers. However, over time, I encountered significant challenges—primarily with the executive leadership team (ELT), especially the CEO and one of the co-owners. Despite repeated requests, I was never given proper shelving for essential café items like glassware, mugs, snacks, and beverages. Everything was kept on the floor in a storage room, creating a chaotic and inefficient work environment. The CEO’s strong aversion to adding shelving—reportedly to maintain a “minimalist” aesthetic—ultimately created obstacles to keeping the space clean and organized. Ironically, my termination was attributed to not being “tidy enough,” which felt deeply unfair given the lack of resources provided. As the DEI Affinity Group Leader for “Queery,” a safe space for LGBTQIA+ employees, I also experienced friction with leadership. I declined to publish an emotionally charged DEI post to social media at their request because I felt it was performative and not backed by real structural support. Soon after, I began to feel tension around my involvement with Queery. It was especially disheartening to witness one of the co-owners regularly hosting religious gatherings in the café—during work hours—where guests would at times express anti-LGBTQ+ views. On one occasion, I addressed this directly and professionally, which was acknowledged. But I continued to feel that affirming queer presence in the space was not welcomed in the same way. Another listed reason for my termination was “outbursts,” yet no concrete examples were ever provided. I believe my advocacy for creating an inclusive, safe environment and my refusal to stay silent about issues affecting BIPOC and LGBTQIA+ team members may not have aligned with ELT’s preferences for a more “a-political” atmosphere. I was encouraged to perform a version of “fake joy” rather than genuine hospitality. Despite these challenges, I’m proud of the impact I made at Thesis. I welcomed hundreds of guests with warmth, intention, and care. I created meaningful connections and helped foster a sense of belonging in the space I managed. In the end, I stand by my values and the work I did—and that’s what matters most to me.

I was very disappointed with my time at Thesis. I see the organization and community that they want to be, and I can say confidently that things have become disconnected along the way. Maybe they were on the right track at some point when the teams were smaller, but they are not on a trajectory to improve. The effort seems performative, with only surface level thought put into what appear to be progressive decisions. All of it feels out of touch and misses the spirit of progress. Parts of the team have a lot of potential, but they don't seem to have the means to see that full potential with the current leadership team. From what I experienced, they say all the right things and have all the right metrics when marketing to applicants, but fall short on principals. There is an underlying culture of defensiveness, self promotion, and apathy that became progressively harder to watch. Certain teams will continually hemorrhage headcount, which won't change without any incentive to improve as long as the work gets done. I've seen this called a norm of the industry, which to me feels like a free pass for apathy. It's only 'normal' because it is painfully common in the creative world, and I do not want to work with a company that accepts this as ok. They could break the mold, but they won't. Things to know: - Communication is very bad; from team to company announcements. Jr leaders were consistently undercut by announcements that directly affect their teams that took them by surprise during a wide announcement. Holiday PTO was a prime example of this fumbling. - Gaslighting, in the form of concerns frequently being pigeonholed into a 'personal' problem rather than an indication of some underlying or broader issue. Unhappy employee? Ask them what their problem is, then end the meeting without further discussion. Potential signs of discrimination? Ask if they have tried talking to the manager directly about it, and then do nothing. Consistent concerns voiced by multiple people? Stop taking feedback because 'we just keep hearing the same things' (yes, these actually happened). Strategic concerns were looked at with a very shallow lens, producing band-aids rather than progress. - Members of the team were hounded to keep their cameras on in all meetings, regardless if they were participating. Certain people were targeted and called out - There are toxic cliques who openly bash specific individuals, teams, or groups (instigated by management). A few even bash the clients and their decisions in a childish way. - Staggering lack of awareness, professionalism, and experience from a few key team leaders. As an example, I have received multiple unsolicited apologies from individuals 2 levels above me on their behavior in meetings - I ran into a few intense egos, counter to what I was told in the interview process - Uneven balance of workload (some self-inflicted due to lack of trust and delegation) - In one instance, feedback was requested, it was given diplomatically, but the team was told to 'choose positivity' as a way to deal with issues that were brought up instead of addressing them. The person who said this was in a prime position to create positive change but always seemed to slip past decisions and accountability - Either poorly veiled indifference toward neurodivergent individuals, or unbelievable lack of awareness (from MULTIPLE leaders, it looks like the unconscious bias training isn't working) - Comedic 'Office' style promotion, with zero actual responsibilities. One individual took no time in asserting their dominance with the team - Feedback often given in a roundabout or obfuscated way to avoid the 'discomfort,' leading to confusion - Very passive approach to discussion and disagreement, which looks less like deference and more like evasive posturing to avoid accountability. This happened in almost every meeting, which led to incomplete tasks and frequent cases of strategic progress evaporating right after discussion. To me, I see a problematic convergence of certain personality types, inexperience with legal guidelines, and lack of accountability that is edging a few people very close to violating worker's rights. I worked to understand and provide the above feedback over my time. However, I began to feel I might be putting my job in jeopardy as more and more problematic behavior surfaced. I saw this shift in trust happen to others with the same tenure, and some veterans that had given up on feedback who experienced the same thing. I reached a point at which I did not trust my manager or other leaders to view feedback objectively, as concerns I voiced (which were shared by team members in those meetings) were repeatedly either glossed over or redirected as a problem only I was having. This kind of gaslighting took me by surprise. I have to reiterate, these were confirmed issues shared by others across departments which I was speaking up for. After continuing to voice that kind of feedback, I was scolded privately in the least direct way I've ever experienced. This was an individual with a wide influence on the company. I had to actually ask if it was feedback for me specifically because I was confused as to what this person was saying. They were clearly uncomfortable with the discussion. This greatly discouraged me from speaking up, as I realized openness wasn't an option. Seeing how some leaders were prone to openly ridiculing/discussing individual performance issues and entire teams in unprofessional terms, I began to worry that I was an unknowing target of those conversations.