It’s worth reading the positive reviews with a critical eye. Many are extremely short, repetitive, and follow the same pattern – praising “resilience” or claiming that people who left “couldn’t handle it.” When you compare the volume of reviews to the relatively small number of employees listed on LinkedIn, it becomes clear that turnover is extremely high, inflating the total number of reviews over time. In addition, employees were at times encouraged to leave positive reviews on Glassdoor to improve the company’s public image, particularly because clients and candidates had begun questioning the inconsistency in feedback. This creates a misleading picture that doesn’t reflect the day-to-day reality of the role or the working environment.
My experience was incredibly tough and toxic culture. Career progression is almost non-existent, and turnover was extremely high. We’d be hired in groups, only for most to leave within month or two, leaving just one hanging on or none at all. It was a revolving door. The environment was stressful, with long hours—8:30 to 5:30 but with the unspoken expectation not to leave before 6:30-7:30pm.
Weekend work was implied, often to fill pipelines so weekdays could be all cold calls and email outbound. It felt like constant calling, constant pressure, and a heavy, old-school 80's, bullying sales culture.
There was no meaningful compensation or benefits—no healthcare, no life insurance, when you're on sick leave you get interrogated and asked if you could wfh, but we have zero flexibility on hybrid work (5 days in office).
Micromanagement was rampant, and work-life balance didn’t exist. Even lunch breaks were encroached upon, with mandatory sales book clubs cutting into time - which they can't enforce but there's peer pressure and unspoken threat if you dont agree. Taking holidays came with guilt trips from line managers. In short, it was divisive, hostile, and outdated.
They also exploit the fact that many new hires are recent graduates who are international students working on post-study visa extensions. There is a constant suggestion that the company might sponsor you long-term, but this is used as leverage rather than genuine support. Sponsorship is held over people’s heads as a threat – performance must be perfect, compliance unquestioning, and targets consistently hit, or the sponsorship simply won’t be offered. Many people never receive sponsorship at all, particularly as it requires the company to pay a higher base salary than they would for a non-sponsored employee.
Even those who do eventually receive sponsorship are often left in complete uncertainty until the final month, creating extreme stress and instability – and are still expected to pay the visa costs themselves. I personally witnessed multiple colleagues have their visas cancelled and employment terminated with very little notice for underperformance. While I am a UK citizen and did not require sponsorship, I saw this pattern repeatedly applied to others.
On top of this, the role requires selling and managing conferences and summits, which involves travelling to event sites to service clients. However, all upfront costs – flights, hotels, transport – must be paid out of pocket by employees and reclaimed later through a slow, tedious expenses process. For many, this caused real short-term financial strain. Employees are also expected to organise all logistics themselves while being challenged and pressured over approvals, as though attending client events is a personal reward rather than a core part of the job. In some cases, flights deemed “too expensive” are refused, forcing people to either pay part of the cost themselves or lose the opportunity entirely – including losing commission if a local colleague closes the client instead.
Salaries are paid on the fifth working day of the month, meaning payment is frequently delayed by weekends or bank holidays, which can further complicate cash flow in an already high-pressure, low-support environment.
