Pros
Some bit of learning curve which is not worth the cons, even in the smallest way.
Cons
Why the firm is extremely toxic, no one should work in such an environment - 1. Not for women at all a. The firm has no policy in place that gives any thought to making the workplace inclusive. It does not respect or acknowledge any life stage and there is no flexibility at all. On questioning the leadership, the response you get is that they will take it up on a case to case basis which means they will decide based on favouritism to the people they like, and manipulate folks they don’t like. b. Program locations are changed on the whim of the leadership with no regard to the employees’ requests. The worst part is that they won’t be upfront about their decisions but keep the employee waiting and guessing due to their manipulative conversations. This can be extremely mentally exhausting. 2. Manipulative management a. Every conversation from the leadership comes along with a subtext. Nothing is clearly defined, and this is done intentionally. It leaves room to change or complicate discussions later, especially at the time of application, in ways that serve their own interests. So anything that you engage with the firm for starting from your salary breakdown, bonus, promotion, location etc. you need to be ready for some other narrative coming your way at the time of application. And that narrative mostly won’t work in your favour. 3. Toxic work culture, curated to break a person’s confidence a. Employees will be ridiculed for their work at some point for sure. b. The leadership would camouflage their silly comments, derogatory way of speaking, and disrespect under perfectionism. They would make you feel that you are going through this since it is your fault, that you are not upto speed and they are somehow contributing to your upskilling through this. c. They would break your confidence by instilling fear for each weekly review and appraisal conversation. 4. Trust does not exist at all amongst the management or with juniors 5. Fake glassdoor reviews pushed to manipulate scores a. There is a template that can be seen in the positive reviews, which is created by the firm and pushed out anonymously b. If anyone has had a relatively good experience, it is solely because of the government official they have worked with and not because of anyone in the leadership at the firm. 6. Favouriteism is the way of working, narcissism is their manifesto a. Mentioning this again because some actors openly exploit others and we know them as goons, while Samagra is a more dangerous firm that disguises self-serving actions as “nation building.” Why the firm is harming the social sector - 1. Only competition, no collaboration - a. They just don’t want to collaborate but compete with others on everything b. They wouldn’t share since they want to monetize as much as possible 2. Follows only ‘yes sir culture’ with the government 3. Brands itself as a consulting firm, while in reality employees work as a PMU that works on operational tasks given by the government 4. Try to monetize or sell public goods which are built from funds received from the ecosystem 5. Most concerning is how they frame this as “nation building” to attract high-performing individuals, only to put them through poor experiences and unhealthy cultures. This often leaves people disillusioned and averse to the social sector altogether, which ultimately does a serious disservice to the sector itself.
