Hubexo Reviews

The organisation has developed a strong “boys’ club” and clique-like culture, with arrogance and ego evident at leadership levels. This has created ongoing instability, internal infighting, and fragmented decision-making, with limited accountability or ability to execute effectively. While there are many opinions at senior levels, there is minimal alignment or ownership around a single, clear vision. Some leaders appear largely disconnected from local markets and their nuances. Many come from consulting or external backgrounds and are struggling and have set expectations that are sometimes unrealistic. As pressure to meet targets increases, infighting and finger-pointing are becoming more common. Gaslighting and manipulative behaviors are increasing with backstabbing and gossiping in some areas now the normal. Concerns raised by staff are often minimized, reframed, or dismissed, leaving individuals questioning their experiences rather than seeing issues constructively addressed. Patterns of intimidating or fear-based management behaviors are also on the rise. Staff are often made to feel that raising concerns or asking for flexibility results in being labelled as “resistant” or “non-compliant,” Staff are frequently treated as numbers rather than people; in some areas it can be quite militant, with limited recognition, fair pay increases, bonuses, or other entitlements. Meanwhile, senior leadership roles are increasing and receive significant compensation packages and benefits, even when revenue growth is not increasing. These underlying issues has contributed to a culture of firefighting, lack of transparency, and circular conversations with little sustained change. Experienced and knowledgeable staff are often underutilized and, in some cases, sidelined due to arrogance, ego, and personal agendas. Meetings are increasingly driven by these distractions rather than expertise and mature leadership driving actual outcomes. While the company promotes a compelling purpose that many employees genuinely want to support, the passion is dying, and lived experience often does not align with this narrative anymore. The organisation relies heavily on outdated, top-down management approaches and shows resistance to adapting to modern ways of working. They don't really know technology, which is scary, and also lack generational expectations and local market realities. Also, not all offices are treated equally or fairly. These cultural and leadership challenges are not isolated—they are affecting most staff, with only small pockets yet to be impacted. Without meaningful cultural and leadership change, the current trajectory risks undermining both employee well-being and long-term organizational success.

There is a persistent and frustrating disconnect between the company’s ambition and its ability to deliver. Big ideas are announced regularly, but execution is consistently poor, timelines are rarely met, and follow-through is the exception rather than the rule. Management quality is wildly inconsistent. While a handful of middle managers in ANZ are competent and professional, others appear to have progressed through loyalty rather than leadership capability. This has a direct impact on team morale and performance. Trust is routinely eroded by managers who struggle to keep up with their own workloads, arrive unprepared, and provide little to no clear direction. Working under this kind of leadership is exhausting, as priorities shift constantly and expectations are rarely articulated or aligned. People management is a major weakness. Some managers actively avoid their direct reports, operate in a chaotic and disorganised way, and deflect accountability when things go wrong. Those perceived as “in the way” can quickly become scapegoats. Despite repeated issues, certain managers receive obvious preferential treatment and are rarely, if ever, challenged in a meaningful way. The company has removed its local HR presence and now relies on an offshore team, which makes raising concerns feel distant, slow, and largely ineffective. This only reinforces the sense that problematic behaviour is tolerated rather than addressed. The company markets itself as a tech-forward, innovative organisation, but internally it relies on a patchwork of aging systems that are endlessly “fixed” rather than properly modernised. Projects are routinely rushed, corners are cut, and the result is a workplace that feels reactive instead of strategic. Travel allowances are poor, to the point where employees need to closely track expenses to avoid being out of pocket for work trips. Staff turnover is high, and while leadership often frames departures as a non-issue, the ongoing inability to retain talent speaks for itself. Overall, this is an environment that wears people down. Many stay for the flexibility or their colleagues, not because they believe in the leadership, the systems, or the long-term direction of the business.