My experience with this company was deeply disappointing and, in my view, the probation process was fundamentally unfair.
One of the key reasons I accepted the role was the leadership team and management structure presented during the interview process. Shortly after joining, my line manager changed unexpectedly, significantly altering the working environment and onboarding experience I had been led to expect. The support, guidance, and leadership style I believed I was joining simply did not materialise.
As someone entering a new sector with a strong senior bid management background, I expected there would be a learning curve. What I did not expect was the complete lack of structured onboarding and development support. I proactively requested opportunities to better understand the company’s bid methodology, including a mock bid process or walkthrough, only to be told there was insufficient time available. Despite this lack of training, I was still expected to perform at a level that appeared to assume extensive prior sector knowledge.
The most frustrating aspect of the role was the constant inconsistency in expectations. Internal AI tools were actively promoted as a way to improve efficiency and learning, yet I was later criticised for using those same tools. Work that had previously been praised, including presentations that attracted positive attention from senior leadership and even interest from the CEO, was later described as significantly below standard when similar approaches were used elsewhere. Expectations seemed to change depending on the conversation, making it almost impossible to understand what success actually looked like.
The probation process appeared to focus on finding evidence of failure rather than supporting improvement. Feedback was often highly critical from the very first draft of work, with little evidence of a coaching or developmental approach. Rather than receiving guidance on how to improve, I felt that conclusions about my capability had already been reached and that subsequent interactions were designed to justify those conclusions.
A particularly unfair example involved an executive summary for a major tender. This task was not originally assigned to me. I returned from annual leave just one working day before submission and was handed responsibility under extreme time pressure. Despite the obvious circumstances, this piece of work appeared to be used as evidence when assessing my overall performance. Judging someone’s suitability for a role based on a last-minute assignment completed under such conditions, especially during onboarding, does not reflect a fair evaluation process.
I was also informed that bid team members were expected to operate as subject matter experts. While ambitious expectations are understandable, expecting someone who has been in a completely new sector for only a matter of weeks to function as an expert is unrealistic without significant support, training, and development.
The management style throughout probation was, at times, intimidating and created unnecessary anxiety. Feedback often felt punitive rather than constructive. Instead of building confidence and capability, interactions frequently left me feeling under pressure and uncertain about what was expected. The environment did not encourage learning, growth, or open discussion.
I fully acknowledge that I was still developing sector knowledge. However, I remained committed, sought feedback, requested support, and made genuine efforts to improve. Unfortunately, the company failed to provide the structure, consistency, and management necessary for a new employee to succeed.
Based on my experience, I would strongly caution prospective employees about the onboarding process, management approach, and the lack of consistency in performance expectations. What appeared to be an opportunity for development ultimately felt like an environment where support was limited, expectations were constantly shifting, and probation outcomes were determined long before the process concluded.
