Pros
Some employees were good and smart people which made it enriching at times. Client portfolio is ok but small. Although similar orgs of the same size have better projects.
Cons
1. Leadership speaks about integrity and "character" but does not meet its own standards. Abusive language is normalised during feedback sessions, and in open forums the partner and principals have publicly berated team members (humiliated almost), made remarks about Body Language and personal traits, and even turned confidential family matters into gossip fodder, all without accountability or remorse. 2. A lot of the leadership does not inspire confidence. Many senior people seemed to lack real depth in the sectors they were leading. This led to unrealistic timelines and expectations from the principals and partners where quality suffered. 3. Fresher-heavy hiring feels exploitative. Leadership claims it wants freshers to “nurture” us, but in practice this often means lower pay, 12–13 hour workdays, repetitive grunt work, and exclusion from bonuses. Favouritism is visible, especially where personal connections and nepotism influence pay and progression. 4. Sincerity is not valued. Even strong professionals who worked with integrity were treated poorly. This frustration is evident from day 1 across levels, from Sr Counselors, Counselors, Associates, HR, IT, admin, and office staff too. An owner-driven Lala organisation that can’t hold onto its clients, nor its employees for even 3 months. Abusive patterns perpetrated by Sr leadership that refuses to reflect on their conduct.