There have been instances where the behavior of two senior leaders has contributed to an environment that feels psychologically unsafe for some employees. While their leadership styles may be tolerated due to their influence, the impact on team morale, trust, and open communication is noticeable.
Success appears more closely tied to internal alignment and visibility than to collaborative integrity or real outcomes that drive value for the company.
Individuals who manage up effectively are regularly promoted, even if their behavior toward peers and teams is corrosive and toxic. There are many examples of this, particularly in recent years.
Passive-aggressive, information hoarding, backchannel criticism, and credit appropriation are not only common—they’re often seen as effective tactics.
Formal HR processes exist, but don't work. When issues involve "protected" individuals, they are quietly deprioritized.
Across multiple functions—especially corporate roles—employees quickly learn a core, unstated truth: everything is tolerated around here, as long as you’re in the right circle.
The executive leadership team appears disengaged and on the way out, just waiting for the paycheck.
The experience of working here varies dramatically depending on who your manager reports to within the leadership team. For some, policies are flexible and accountability is optional; for others, even basic fairness feels out of reach.
It’s an organisation of extremes — where equality, consistency, and meritocracy are talked about far more than they’re practiced.
This has created a trust vacuum, where many competent professionals choose to disengage or exit altogether.