Deeply toxic culture. No attempt to resolve, only to deny. - Anonymous employee GLOCK Employee Review

Working at this agency was, unfortunately, one of the most toxic professional experiences I’ve had in the design industry. The root of many of the agency’s problems stems from the leadership culture created by the founder and CEO. There is a very clear “top-down” mentality where alternative perspectives, feedback, or ways of working are rarely welcomed unless they align with leadership’s existing views. Despite the company employing some genuinely exceptional designers and creatives, many employees are not given the opportunity to contribute meaningfully or challenge ideas constructively. This culture trickles down into the senior leadership team, which lacks diversity and broader representation (an important consideration anywhere but especially within the design industry where different perspectives make for better work!) During my time there, concerns around diversity and inclusion were repeatedly raised by staff, including requests for more balanced representation within leadership. Rather than these conversations being met with openness, they were often handled defensively and publicly dismissed. That created an environment where many employees no longer felt psychologically safe speaking up. A major issue across the agency is that employees often feel valued more for billable hours and timesheets than for the actual quality of their work, creativity, or contribution to culture. Long hours are normalised, flexibility is limited, and work-life balance is not meaningfully supported. Going above and beyond quickly becomes expected rather than appreciated which makes burnout incredibly common. Their mindset is 'if you don't like it here, the door is there' so I'd recommend not entering it at all. Another major concern is the lack of a proper HR structure. Raising issues internally never felt safe or productive, which is likely why so many former employees resort to leaving honest Glassdoor reviews instead (a few of which have seemed to ¿disappear? or get drowned out with verrryyy questionable 5-star ratings). Exit interviews also seemed inconsistent or absent altogether (same with annual reviews tbh), which contributed to the feeling that leadership was not interested in understanding why staff turnover remained high. I would encourage anyone considering applying to read the lower-rated reviews carefully rather than focusing only on the recent influx of highly positive ones. In my experience, the one-star reviews reflect the day-to-day reality far more accurately.