Constant strategy changes and poor leadership created a difficult culture
Pros
There were some genuinely talented and hardworking people across the company, and many colleagues supported each other despite the wider challenges. Work life balance was also generally good. The company offered unlimited holiday and, while there was technically a two-day office policy, it was rarely enforced and often varied between teams. In practice, most people had a lot of flexibility in how and where they worked, which many employees appreciated.
Cons
The company went through a major strategic shift following an acquisition, alongside a change in leadership. After this point, the direction of the business frequently felt unclear, with strategy and priorities constantly changing. Managers were often expected to lead through these changes without any real training or support. Many were placed in management roles without the tools or guidance needed to effectively lead teams during a period of significant organisational instability. Planning and communication felt increasingly disorganised, and expectations continued to rise despite the lack of clarity around priorities. There was constant pressure to do more and perform better, but without the structure needed to make that possible. There were also several rounds of redundancies in the later years, which had a significant impact on morale and trust. Over time, the culture deteriorated noticeably and the environment became increasingly difficult. Ironically, the same flexibility that gave people a good level of work life balance also contributed to the lack of structure across teams. With little consistency in expectations or leadership direction, the overall culture became fragmented.
