Pros
Peer collaboration is generally positive Experience that teaches what not to do in leadership
Cons
The core problem with this company is the extreme centralisation of power with one person and not with management. Almost all decisions across teams are made by one individual, leaving HODs and managers with little to no authority and teams with no real voice. What should be collaborative leadership feels more like unilateral rule. This single person's control leads directly to chaos. Priorities change frequently, policies are revised without explanation, and teams are forced to redo work because decisions are reversed on a whim. There is no consistency, no ownership, and no accountability. Managers do not stand up for their teams, even when employees are clearly right. Instead of challenging incorrect decisions, they pass them down, creating frustration and disengagement at every level. As a result, internal politics thrive. Employees focus more on staying aligned with the decision maker than on doing quality work. Merit, data, and ground reality take a back seat, while morale and trust steadily decline. Despite visible signs of damage, rising attrition, and declining outcomes, there is little willingness at the leadership level to pause, reflect, or course correct. The same decisions are repeated, pushing the organization steadily toward risk rather than recovery. The issue is not a lack of talent but a lack of shared leadership. Until decision-making is distributed, feedback is genuinely valued, and managers are trusted and empowered to lead, the organisation will continue to struggle under the weight of centralised, one-person control.
