It is hard reconciling the sea of five star reviews with a place that severely affected my mental health (and that of at least four other colleagues that I know of!). I wonder if they were in some way coerced? Or perhaps jumped upon when they were new and eager? Either way, here are my cons. Please make of them what you will: - Salaries are not in line with industry standard and promotions from within are viewed as a cost savings exercise - Colleagues are often promoted before they have the necessary skills and experience (the more cynical part of me suspects because "they are more pliable" aka "easier to control"), and then later made scapegoats for any mistakes / perceived failings. If you look, there is a pattern of people leaving shortly after a promotion - Workload is consistently overwhelming and remains unsupported when raised, especially for teams where work is "billed per unit" (as opposed to "billed per hour") even though the deliverables and expectations far exceed their counterparts - Commitments are made to clients regarding expedited timelines, without seeking information regarding feasiblity from those delivering, and there is an expectation that people will work over and above their hours to fulfill (not a one-time thing - ALL the time) - Incentives often fall short, as they are usually awarded to the most "put upon" person at that moment in time (further perpetuating the culture that you have to work to the point of burnout) - Feedback is sought but I have witnessed "swift retribution" dealt to those brave enough to give it - Anyone who leaves (especially in a leadership role) is almost always made a scapegoat for failure to resource correctly, and more reassurances of change are given to those that remain but are never fulfilled - The role someone interviews for and accepts, is not always the role they end up in. In spite of multiple exit interviews citing this as a reason for leaving, I have still heard "oh, we'll just slot this person in here when they arrive" conversations There was one review that irritated me most of all! The group I have witnessed to show a complete male-bias is leadership themselves. On several occasions I have seen leadership take note of a male colleague repeating, word for word, what female colleagues have previously raised. There were many strong female leaders who treated others with respect and tried to use their voice to improve working conditions, ultimately to their own downfall. To suggest that these women "did not like being led by other women" is a quantum leap, not a stretch! Upon receiving multiple accounts of the same thing, there must surely come a point where you cannot continue to point the finger at everyone else.
