A Corporate Trapped Inside A Start-Up’s Body - Anonymous employee Suade Labs Employee Review

- One colleague described the culture as “having no culture” while another described it as “a corporate trapped inside a start-up's body”. My feeling from the office environment is that people work mostly silently, individually despite management saying that they want to encourage “team cross-pollination” (among other corporate bingo card jargon used). - I believe the CEO and CTO appreciate their employees however across the organisation recognition is often too vague (e.g. “thanks for all the good work”). Criticism (which is good and should be provided, albeit in private) a better balance can be struck to giving it on team-wide calls and with a bit more sensitivity on a couple of occasions. - Feedback upwards was only solicited once formally via an online form which felt like a box-ticking exercise as nothing seemed to come from it. If ongoing 360-degree feedback was implemented, I have low confidence this would be taken onboard. - There had been high turnover in the past (which has since improved) but management always excused that with “they found a better opportunity elsewhere” or “decided to take time off”. Addressing some internal gripes (however small) can lead to higher employee satisfaction. - “Leadership” is largely misused and conflated with "management" e.g. in a slide the term “servant leadership” was used and the description given during the presentation was that of 'giving people internally instructions so they know what to do'. - One month there was a delay for salaries for some employees (which led to one colleague having to go into their overdraft incurring a small overdraft fee). This is now automated but at the time this was processed manually. The finance department sent an email blaming the bank on an error and were supposedly were taking this up with the bank. I was told by someone close to the payments process this was due to the manual processing being delayed rather than the bank’s fault. While I cannot confirm this to be the case, it is highly coincidental that the error took place while key members of the C-Suite were abroad on holiday. If that was the case, apologising for the delay would have sufficed. This led to an erosion of trust in the organisation from my point of view but would like to think this to be an isolated incident. - Company pension is listed as a benefit, but this is simply a statutory requirement. The company contributes the minimum level at that. Further, regulation states that the employer can delay the start date of the enrollment into the pension scheme by up to 3 months which has been fully taken advantage of so contributions into employees' pension pots start after that point. I recognise no organisation is perfect so there will always be some cons, so below are smaller annoyances (but which can build up over time): - The company has a policy whereby once you resign you are prohibited from attending company onsite meetings during your notice period. This is the type of policy found at bulge bracket investment banks rather than a 70-person scale-up. This to me, feels odd, corporate, and a bit cold to witness when colleagues depart. - Paternity leave is listed as “extraordinary” so there may be scope for more equality from that perspective. - Employee satisfaction survey contains some poorly phrased questions e.g. one is along the lines of whether you feel happy, which likely does not yield much insight or is actionable. - The word “bug” for example, is not used because of its negative connotation (despite it being a technical term). Similarly, phrases like “code change” are avoided too. This is to say that a somewhat overly sensitive approach is taken with client-facing issues. To be fair, large financial institutions are archaic, and can make more of a deal than is worth at times.