Pros
Many employees are capable, hardworking, and supportive of one another
Cons
Based on my experience, the root cause of most issues in the company is the CEO’s leadership approach. The management style is highly top-down and creates a consistently stressful and unsustainable environment for employees.
Work boundaries are weak. It is common for staff to be contacted outside of working hours, including late nights, weekends, and public holidays, for non-urgent matters. Over time, this behaviour becomes normalised, creating constant pressure to be available and contributing to burnout.
Workload expectations under this leadership model are unrealistic and unevenly applied. Teams that reliably deliver are repeatedly asked to take on additional responsibilities to compensate for broader organisational gaps, while underperformance elsewhere is rarely addressed with the same urgency. This has been explicitly justified by saying reliable teams should do more because they get things done, which in practice punishes strong performers rather than supports them.
There also appears to be favouritism in how employees are treated. Some ‘favourite’ employees seem to face little consequence for missed deliverables, while others are routinely assigned administrative or menial tasks (such as constantly being asked to take notes for extended meetings) under the explanation that it is “learning opportunities” or “skill-building”. These expectations are not applied consistently, which negatively affects morale and trust in leadership.
Strategic direction is unstable, and decision-making is highly inconsistent and often reactive. Even after alignment is reached, priorities can change abruptly based on leadership’s anecdotal feedback or personal viewpoints rather than data or market research. Teams are expected to pivot quickly regardless of time and effort already invested. KPIs and success metrics also shift frequently, making it difficult to plan effectively or feel confident about expectations.
Projects are often delayed following leadership intervention. Work that could be completed quickly by one group may sit idle for weeks after being reassigned, with little explanation or accountability. When delays occur, responsibility tends to be pushed downward instead of being addressed at the decision-making level.
Communication under this leadership style is inefficient. Meetings regularly run for several hours without clear conclusions, decisions, or next steps. Written communication is lengthy but lacks clarity, leaving employees unsure of priorities. Feedback is indirect and delivered through vague signals rather than clear, professional conversations.
This management approach also fosters a culture of distrust, antagonism and negativity. Employees are sometimes given negative information about colleagues, which creates unnecessary tension rather than teamwork and collaboration. Sensitive information, such as compensation, are occasionally discussed openly, which feels unprofessional and undermines trust within the organisation.
Concerns around workload, wellbeing, and work-life balance are not taken seriously. Even very junior employees raising these issues have been treated as problematic rather than being heard. I personally observed multiple colleagues leave due to stress- or health-related reasons they developed after working here.
While leadership frequently emphasizes values such as care, integrity, and excellence, there is a noticeable gap between these messages and daily practice. For example, in response to an increase in negative Glassdoor feedback, the focus appeared to be on improving public perception rather than addressing the underlying issues internally (ie. by trying to force employees to write fake positive Glassdoor reviews). This further eroded trust.
Similarly, the company’s social mission can also feel inconsistent in practice. While public messaging discourages certain products, employees have been instructed internally to support selling those same products on the basis that customers will purchase them elsewhere anyway. This contradiction was disheartening for employees who joined believing strongly in the mission.
Finally, the tone set at the top impacts professionalism across the organisation. Meetings sometimes include gossip or disparaging remarks about partners or colleagues, which is inappropriate and sets a poor tone. Dissenting views are not encouraged. It often feels safer to agree than to raise alternative perspectives, which limits healthy debate and improvement.