• Weak and often toxic management culture
Management quality varies significantly, but in my case direct leadership was characterised by poor communication, lack of clarity, shifting expectations, gaslighting, and a general absence of healthy feedback practices.
Rather than enabling growth, management often relied on pressure, ambiguity, and informal power dynamics.
• No clear goals, KPIs, or performance frameworks
Over several years, no formal KPIs, performance reviews, or objective success criteria were ever set.
Despite this, “performance” can later be referenced retroactively, which makes accountability one-sided and fundamentally unfair.
• Retaliation-adjacent dynamics
Raising concerns about management behaviour did not result in meaningful intervention or protection. In my case, termination followed shortly after formally raising issues about toxic leadership.
Regardless of intent, this creates a chilling effect and directly contradicts any stated non-retaliation principles.
• HR functions as risk management, not people support
HR appears primarily focused on protecting the company rather than supporting employees or contractors. Communication is formalistic, cold, and heavily legalistic - even in situations that call for basic human decency and respect.
• Contractor model used to minimise responsibility
While formally structured as contractor roles, in practice many positions function like full-time employees: long-term engagement, operational dependency, exclusivity, managerial subordination.
This creates a grey zone where individuals carry employee-level responsibility without employee-level protection, benefits, or security.
• No social package or long-term incentives
There is no healthcare, no meaningful benefits, no transparent bonus structure, no long-term motivation mechanisms.
The company relies almost entirely on individual goodwill, passion, and personal resilience - which is not sustainable.
• Compensation growth requires constant negotiation
Salary indexation is not systematic and often requires repeated justification. Expanded responsibilities were at times proposed without any corresponding increase in compensation.
• Poor and impersonal exit practices
Even after long-term contribution, exits are handled coldly and transactionally. There is little sense of respect for tenure, contribution, or institutional knowledge.
Basic professionalism — including accurate communication and attention to detail — is sometimes lacking even at the final stage.
• Leadership avoids addressing root problems
Instead of fixing dysfunctional management structures, the company often chooses the easier path: replacing people rather than addressing systemic issues.
