R.M.Williams Reviews

-Job satisfaction heavily dependant on manager -Many operational faults -Upper management disconnect from retail stores -Low pay (retail in general)

The New Zealand teams often felt like a lower priority compared to the Australian operations. Investment in local marketing, community engagement, and support for the NZ market appeared limited, making it difficult to build a strong local presence and achieve regional growth objectives. These concerns were regularly raised by New Zealand managers and team members, with ideas and recommendations shared with Area Managers and senior leadership, but little meaningful action or investment followed. There was also inconsistency in how workplace standards, performance concerns, and behavioural issues were addressed. Employees who value strong accountability, adherence to New Zealand employment standards, and timely management intervention may find this frustrating. In my experience, documented performance and attendance concerns could persist for extended periods without effective resolution, creating the perception that standards were not applied consistently across the business. Over time, this contributed to lower morale and a sense that feedback, documentation, and established processes had limited influence on outcomes. A further challenge was the company’s approach to leadership recruitment and development. Significant effort was invested into hiring, onboarding, and training new teams for store openings, and many frontline team members showed strong potential. However, some leadership appointments appeared to be made before candidates were fully prepared for the responsibilities of the role. As a result, considerable time and resources spent on recruitment, training, and establishing operational standards did not always translate into long-term success. When store leaders were unable or unwilling to consistently uphold company standards, much of the work invested in building strong teams and culture was undermined. This was particularly frustrating for those who dedicated substantial effort to developing new stores and supporting their success. There were also instances where employee relations issues appeared to be managed through transfers rather than resolution. In one case, a team member with a history of interpersonal conflict was moved between stores despite existing concerns about their impact on team dynamics. This created predictable challenges, as previous behavioural concerns followed the employee into the new team environment. Existing staff members who had prior negative experiences with the individual were required to work through the situation without meaningful support or intervention. Rather than addressing the root cause, management decisions sometimes shifted the issue between teams, creating unnecessary tension and disruption. Employees and managers who value a positive workplace culture may find it frustrating when documented behavioural concerns are not addressed proactively and consistently. During a visit to New Zealand, the CEO addressed feedback raised by local employees regarding investment, support, and operational challenges. In a follow-up video communication, employees were encouraged not to view themselves as being “victimized” when raising concerns. While this message may have been intended to encourage resilience and accountability, many employees in New Zealand experienced it as dismissive of concerns that had been repeatedly raised through formal and informal channels. This contributed to a reduced sense of psychological safety when escalating issues, as employees felt that ongoing challenges were not being fully acknowledged or engaged with at senior leadership level.