Pros
Interesting client base. Team members were friendly and collaborative. Opportunity to work on data infrastructure challenges.
Cons
– The Director-level role I accepted did not match the work I ended up doing day-to-day. The remit was largely delivery-focused — writing proposals, executing projects, and handling operational tasks — rather than contributing at a strategic or leadership level as advertised. I was hired with the expectation of helping fix structural and process issues, but when I raised solutions, the response was that “nothing is broken” and that this was not part of my remit, which made improvement work effectively impossible. – Reporting lines were unclear, and decision-making frequently shifted between multiple people, making it difficult to establish ownership or move work forward with confidence. – Many decisions were made by committee rather than by clear leadership, resulting in slow progress, conflicting directions, and a reluctance to commit to anything definitively — which is unusual for such a small team. – Compensation is below market for the level of responsibility implied during recruitment, and salary progression is unclear. – The organisation would benefit from stronger research, data, and technical expertise to support the ambitions communicated during hiring. – Data processes, documentation, and compliance practices felt inconsistent and would benefit from clearer governance and specialist oversight. – The business describes itself as agile, but in practice there was notable resistance to change, even when issues were acknowledged by multiple people. – Overtime often seemed to be treated as normal rather than exceptional. – Ultimately, the misalignment between the advertised role and the actual operating environment meant the position wasn’t the right fit for me.