Pros
Great colleagues — worked with a lot of supportive, driven, and collaborative people across teams. Young and energetic work environment, which can be engaging and fast-paced. Decent company equipment and tools provided to do the job effectively. Exposure to an interesting and growing industry with global relevance.
Cons
Leadership lacks consistency and transparency. Strategic decisions are often made without clear communication or context, which creates uncertainty and makes it difficult for teams to align with long-term priorities. Feedback from experienced staff is frequently overlooked. Concerns raised early by knowledgeable team members are not always taken seriously, only to resurface later as real issues. When this happens, solutions are often rushed, and the resulting pressure tends to fall back on delivery teams rather than being addressed structurally. Limited training and support. Many roles require learning on the job with minimal onboarding, documentation, or structured guidance, which can make it challenging for employees to perform effectively or develop confidently. Constant changes in role focus, KPIs, and team structures. Shifting priorities and frequent reorganisations make it harder to build momentum, measure success consistently, or feel secure in how performance is evaluated. Loss of key leadership in previous restructures. Some experienced managers and team leads were removed, leading to teams being managed by individuals without deep understanding of those functions, impacting morale and effectiveness. Inconsistent leadership capability and decision-making. There is a noticeable gap at times between how leadership presents itself and how decisions are executed in practice, which can make it difficult for teams to feel confident in direction. This is sometimes compounded by a lack of openness around decision-making, which limits accountability and trust. Cost-heavy decisions during financially constrained periods. Despite financial pressures, the company committed to an expensive City of London office and later increased in-office attendance requirements when utilisation expectations were not met. This felt misaligned with broader cost-control messaging and flexible working expectations.