Toxic culture, poor training, and questionable research standards
Pros
There are some genuinely nice people, especially among newer hires. High turnover means you quickly see you’re not alone in your experience.
Cons
My experience at the company was defined by a highly toxic and controlling working environment. There is a strong culture of micromanagement and a clear lack of trust in employees, their individuality, and their work. The Managing Director often credits himself as the reason clients choose the company, while devaluing the quality of work produced by the “current generation”. This is then used to justify absurd levels of micromanagement and limited autonomy across teams. Employees, for example, are required to log their work in 15-minute increments and, despite being given unrealistic time expectations, are frequently criticised for taking too long from the outset. Training is minimal and largely ineffective. New starters are told they will “learn quickly,” but in practice are expected to take on full responsibilities within a couple of weeks, with little practical guidance. Initial training consists mostly of generic slide presentations with limited relevance to the actual work. From that point on, employees are expected to figure things out themselves, often while being shamed for not knowing how to do things or doing them fact enough. This culture of distrust and shaming is reinforced at all levels, with junior staff often imitating it as a perceived rite of passage to progress within the company. Equally concerning are the underlying values shaping the culture. There were repeated comments and narratives reflecting dismissive or stereotypical views around diversity, equity, and inclusion. Conversations about immigrants, working culture, and poverty often relied on sweeping generalisations, while EDI-related topics were frequently dismissed or labelled negatively. This creates an environment where diverse perspectives do not feel welcomed or respected. The research itself often feels surface-level and presentation-driven, prioritising polished outputs over depth or critical insight. It is closer to market research than rigorous social research and is frequently positioned in ways that support proposed policy directions rather than independently interrogating them. Given that this is research that is mostly funded through government and public sector budgets, it raises uncomfortable questions about public funding priorities in the UK and the role of such agencies as providers of independent evidence, particularly in a context where academic institutions are facing ongoing cuts.
