Pros
The remuneration is a positive highlight: salaries are competitive and above the market average. However, reaching this salary level requires intensive individual negotiations with the owner and a constant defense of one's own interests on the part of the employee.
Cons
The company’s leadership is characterized by absolute centralism, tailored entirely to the persona of the owner. Existing CEO structures in other divisions are effectively ceremonial, as actual decision-making power rests exclusively with the owner. Corporate goals appear to be driven less by sustainable growth and more by the realization of the owner's personal visions. Middle management operates without genuine autonomy, limiting itself to the execution of directives to avoid jeopardizing the favor of the executive leadership. This environment stifles any form of independent or professional management. There is a massive lack of strategic consistency. Guidelines are volatile and change frequently, rendering operational work unstable and inefficient. A specific point of criticism is the disproportionate investment policy: while millions are funneled into prestige projects—such as the renovation of a roof terrace at one of the Spanish locations—established social benefits, like the four-day workweek, were simultaneously abolished. Such investment sums are entirely out of proportion for a workforce of only about 30 people at that site. This prioritization signals a clear disregard for the employees and sustainably undermines staff engagement. The disregard for the workforce is further evidenced by the expectations regarding employees' private lives. This mentality is reinforced by official statements made by the owner to the staff: "Sometimes I believe that for some people here, their private life is more important than their work." The working climate is perceived as toxic, with communication dynamics that can verge on hostile. This atmosphere is significantly shaped by the owner's behavior. A recurring issue is the unreliability of decisions: it is common for agreements to be internally contradicted or communicated in reverse shortly after they are made, leading to substantial disinformation. A healthy "error culture" is non-existent; leadership does not acknowledge or take responsibility for poor decisions.