Interesting engineering work overshadowed by poor leadership, unrealistic expectations, and a toxic culture
Pros
The office environment is generally clean and functional, and the annual Christmas events are well organised. The workshop and test facilities are reasonably well equipped, although some equipment is dated and would benefit from upgrades. There are genuinely knowledgeable, supportive and honest people within the wider teams, and working with them day‑to‑day can be positive. Pay and benefits are average for the industry. Many projects are technically interesting, and there are opportunities to be involved in high‑level motorsport powertrain development and occasionally interact with well‑known figures in the industry.
Cons
Leadership is a major concern. The Managing Director’s approach to planning and deadlines often creates unnecessary internal pressure. Deadlines are frequently set without realistic data or resource assessment, and the expectation becomes 1–2 hours of unpaid overtime every day to compensate. Performance is often judged not by the quality or delivery of your work, but by whether you are visibly staying late. This pressure is not driven by external customers but by internal decisions, and it cascades down through teams in a way that is unsustainable. Senior management is inconsistent, with several individuals in key positions due more to long tenure than people‑management ability. This contributes to high turnover, uneven workloads, and a lack of direction in some areas. Career development is extremely limited. There are no structured training plans for anyone, at any level, and this includes periods where an employee is placed on a personal improvement plan. Even when you request training - whether time, support, or funding - to learn a tool or method required for your daily job, it is typically denied. “Training” usually consists of a quick handover from a colleague rather than structured learning. There is no training budget, and even self‑funded development is difficult due to the lack of time, access to software, or available licences. During busy periods, limited software licences create bottlenecks that force overtime simply to complete basic work. Many processes are outdated, manual, and prone to error, and documentation is often incomplete or out of date. The work environment can be toxic. Performance reviews tend to reflect only management’s perspective, with little consideration for the employee’s view or context. Personal improvement plans are used primarily as a mechanism to push people out, often without any prior indication of performance concerns. The goals set within these plans are typically ambiguous, lack measurable criteria, and the expectations shift over time. None of this is documented, making it impossible to refer back to what was verbally agreed. Despite public values such as “honesty” and “integrity,” internal practices do not always align with these statements. Feedback during reviews can be positive and reassuring, with managers stating that expectations are being met or that a promotion is being approved. However, major decisions - including termination - can follow shortly afterwards without warning or clear justification, contradicting the feedback previously given. Compensation decisions are inconsistent. When the company chooses to pay a yearly premium, it rarely reflects actual effort or contribution. Pay rises tend to be minimal and often align with the lowest end of inflation, regardless of workload or performance. This contributes to a general feeling that hard work is not recognised or rewarded. Break policies are rigid, with expectations that employees only take breaks during designated times and avoid non‑work conversations outside those periods. Team‑building opportunities are minimal. There is no hybrid working option and very little flexibility overall.
