Pros
Previously, the culture here showed real promise. Employees were aligned on strategy, and leadership seemed to encourage clarity and focus. At that point, it felt like the organisation had the potential to grow stronger WITH THE RIGHT CHANGES AT THE TOP. Instead, the choices that were made have moved the company in the opposite direction.
Cons
The core problem is simple: leadership doesn’t know what it’s doing and the situation is so far gone that they don’t know how to move forward now. Instead of building a strong culture or executing on strategy, they rely on slogans and empty statements. “High performance culture” is used as a cover for bullying, scapegoating, and driving people out. There is no psychological safety, no accountability at the top, and no evidence that those in charge have the skills or knowledge to run the business effectively. Those who question decisions or highlight flaws are pushed aside, often in ways that disproportionately affect women. Competent people leave, and what remains is a culture defined by fear, not performance. It’s difficult to see how this approach is sustainable, and it’s genuinely surprising that the fallout hasn’t already escalated further. Leaders have tried to resolve this by bringing in unqualified and ill-suited people to fix the issues. These hires have reinforced the wrong behaviours: command and control, blameshifting, and posturing, while driving out the people who actually had the skills, experience, and commitment to build something better.