
Director, Trust & Safety
They mention that this role has global responsibilities a few times, and as much as I appreciate the close relationship with Support, considering the scale of the work, I think this should really be a VP-level title.
They mention that this role has global responsibilities a few times, and as much as I appreciate the close relationship with Support, considering the scale of the work, I think this should really be a VP-level title.
Can we not? Can we just not require a T&S professional to have a "fun" attitude, especially when you haven't given any space to explaining how you'll care for their mental well-being? Ugh. Honestly, that pisses me off enough to put this into Tread Carefully.
Putting this in Eh, It's Probably Fine because the salary is quite wide and I'd like to see the title be a bit more senior given the required qualifications, but otherwise it's nice to see a T&S JD written with such obvious care and skill.
So this job closed and then re-opened at some point since early February. Which, uh, seems like not the greatest sign, you know?
Genuinely one of the most diverse companies I've seen so far. And the rare case where a company claims diversity as a value and is clearly backing that up with their hiring. Cool!
The company sounds fine and they have a solid Careers page. However, based on the job description, it's not totally clear why this is a Director-level role, and some of the job duties don't fit with a Success role.
Seems great. Job description includes a lot of personality and both the JD and the Careers page are informative while showing a lot of positive culture signals.
It's a call center director position at a corporate giant, so, you know. Do with that what you will.
Again, a CX pro with an EA background would be a great fit for this role (I know y'all are out there!) and the pay is great.
Ehhhhh. Look. Most people want to do the very best they can, and yes, overachieve. But I am immediately suspicious of any company that wants to codify an employee doing more than what they're being paid for.
So...this role is a Senior Manager, Strategic Customer Success managing Senior Customer Success Managers collaborating with Account Managers, Managing Directors and Customer Success Managers. Who's on first?
"You want to be with the best" -- No. Throw me in the dumpster. Those trash pandas are my real family.
Careers page is pretty basic; doesn't mention benefits at all, and neither does the job description. Otherwise, Cinder does a good job of explaining what its looking for in this role, and I don't see any major flags.
Holy shit, SO MANY RED FLAGS, SO FAST. This is the most unhinged job description I've ever reviewed.
Do not do a shot every time you read the words "competent" or "competence." You will die of alcohol poisoning.
Job description is refreshingly free of "fast-paced, dynamic company" and "rockstar" language that's been so prevalent today. Salary's a little wide, but more than appropriate. This one might be a keeper!
Veeva is a Public Benefit Corporation. I don't agree with some of their restrictions, but I think their honesty is a green flag.
Y'all. Whenever a company mentions the actual benefits of a job as "in addition" to the PRIVILEGE and SPLENDOR of simply working for said company, as if being able to feed and provide for the health of your family is secondary to supporting an "iconic brand," well that is a major red flag.
I can't decide if quoting Albert Einstein in a job description is cute or weird. I'm leaning toward cute, because this actually seems like a really neat job, and I've detected no flags. Our first Green Means Go of this week!
Role reports to the CFO, which is an interesting choice.
I'm tentatively putting this in Green Means Go only because they state that they don't negotiate salaries. In the context of their Careers page and the job description, it doesn't seem like a flag.
Yes, it's AI. I'm as surprised as you.
The "ambiguous environments" bit stands out to me in particular, since all of the responsibilities of the role seem pretty concrete in scope – so where's the ambiguity coming from?