Be careful of appearances - Started off well but ended up being a Toxic and Political place full of Favoritism
Pros
I started at this firm from day one, processing claims and building the team. The idea behind the company and its values were well intentioned; basically to be an agile, competent, and professional consultancy that puts the client first. It is important to note that a perfect company or environment doesn't exist, there are always compromises, and if a team performs well together, then any shortcomings can be mitigated against. Below are a few points that highlight certain advantages/opportunities offered (but equivalent negatives are presented in the "cons" section below) : - INDUSTRY LEVEL: -- Started with gold standard servicing of clients and claims -- Good marketing and outreach programmes -- Started with focusing on clients traditionally neglected by other boutique firms -- Good links with industry partners and developments within R&D sectors internationally -- Ambitious growth plans - TEAM LEVEL: -- Most Technical Team members are very hardworking and cooperative, as well as sales team - there is natural synergy between front line staff -- Openess to talk about issues or problems -- Started with highly energetic and open structure, enabling rapid identification of issues and how to neutralise them - INDIVIDUAL LEVEL: -- Higher than average payscale at the start -- Flexible working conditions, Inc dress code, holidays, working from home and so on -- New starters are often offered rapid promotion as an incentive
Cons
It's important to state here that I have no interest in seeing this company or the team suffer. To be as humble as possible, I was instrumental in the foundations of this company, and poured everything into ensuring the engine of the company started to work - I am proud of my legacy there, and the information presented here is for the benefit of the team there and for prospective applicants. I will however highly recommend the reader to look at the dates of all the positive reviews, and judge for themselves how authentic or genuine these are. I strongly suspect these have been written by the team (after I left) under duress (forced positive reviews under instruction from the CEO - only 2 individuals had he guts to give some feedback, albeit dressed in language to not annoy the management). The issue highlighted above summarises everything wrong with this company: it started off with good intentions, but the way things are "solved" here puts the ethics, values and promises the company makes under a big question mark. In response to the pros highlighted above, the corresponding cons are : - INDUSTRY LEVEL : -- the company is highly ambitious, as is every other company, but there is big disconnect between the actual state vs the picture presented - the actual state is that there is no respect or appreciation of clients technical work, the claims are treated simple stepping stones to the CEOs naked ambition to sell the start up company ASAP, and hence show a picture of "strong growth" -- Whilst it is great to be agile, the management is obsessed with gimmicks and trends of the shallow business world. There is a lot of hot air, but not much substance. It's similar to someone reading 100 self help books but does nothing to actually experiment with what works and what doesn't. The structure of the the team and strategy are constantly changing to match predetermined results. In simple terms, it doesn't matter if some operational exercise is nonsense, as long as the management like it, the team will have to follow it. Criticism or a review of such practices is not appreciated, and if you make the mistake of providing feedback, you'll be singled out as an issue -- The agreements with clients are not honoured, ie despite charging very high fees, the company regularly breaks its promises to clients when claims do not go according to plan (instead of tailoring an approach that would help the client) - TEAM LEVEL : -- The R&D sector is dynamic and lucrative, hence large growth, but it still needs experienced engineers, scientists and IT professionals to be able to lead the claims and apply judgement well. However, to keep costs low, the firm insisted on hiring graduates as the primary workforce to complete claims. Graduates are not bad, but it's not their fault they can't make a case when faced with a challenging claim. This again stems from the lack of technical appreciation from management. -- The team is not run on merit, it is run on favorites. The CEO hires family members, one of whom was grossly incompetent and unethical, but was favoured about more competent and hardworking individuals. -- As the technical management team have no technical experience, claims must be Tailored to suit their reviews. This contaminates and complicates the claim process, as the consultants are not servicing the clients, but the management team. If conclusions of a claim case do not match their predetermined conclusions, then consultants are punished for "not making a strong case" -- HR and complaint processes are poor, there is too much insidious gossiping and behind the scenes maneuvering, the values of transparency and working as one are only gimmicks - INDIVIDUAL LEVEL : -- In any job, its important to note that one doesn't get anything for free, there's always a cost or a sacrifice. However, in a truly professional environment, such costs and sacrifices are acknowledged by both parties and as such, forms the basis of the team. However, the promises of higher salary, promotion, etc are constantly being broken by this company -- Higher average salaries, possible promotion, and flexible work conditions are used as a lure. If you are a political favorite of the CEO, then you will easily realise all these things without much effort (refer to the relative hired above). There are others who meet all their targets, as a result of sacrifice in the form of long hours, health and emotional well-being - their contribution is recognised only if an issue arises and the managers/CEO have to do damage control -- note free unlimited holiday offered by the company is paid for only 20 days - the rest is unpaid. An individual can get this arrangement at any reasonable company - there's nothing special going on here, so don't get fooled by the "unlimited holiday" title -- You will be run at capacity for a very long time, and there will be little room for any actual learning or development. This is especially damaging for junior team members, who confuse such a pace of working as something "normal" -- The goal posts are constantly changed. Whilst this happens a lot in start ups, R&D claims industry is a much more steady industry, and basic promises of career progression, salary increases and opportunities to learn and develop are constantly broken
