Damaging culture behind a polished external image
Pros
Some very capable and kind colleagues, and opportunities to do interesting work. A genuinely unique and worthwhile public-facing initiative.
Cons
I joined knowing that some people had found the culture unusual, but I thought that might just come with working at an independently owned, founder-led place. At first, there were many positives, but over time they were eroded by an overriding culture that felt unhealthy beyond what you could say was just typical agency life. The company puts a lot of energy into its external image and values, but internally it often felt very different. There was a strong sense that the business revolved around the approval of one person, and that progression depended on buying into the culture as much as doing good work. Staff development felt inconsistent. Junior staff were often put under too much pressure without enough training, support or genuine mentorship. If people coped, there was pressure to pile on more work; if they struggled, they were quickly written off as a problem to be gotten rid of with little effort towards understanding what the issue might be. Work was often given to whoever could be stretched further, rather than whoever had the right skills or capacity. You could argue that this is just part of the cut and thrust of life at most agencies - which it is - but not to the degree of vacillation I witnessed during my time with the company. The consequences were bad for staff, bad for morale and not good for clients. On occasions, the culture did not feel psychologically safe. There was high turnover, regular visible distress among staff, undermining behaviour and a tendency to blame individuals rather than address wider problems. HR did not feel close enough to the reality of people’s day-to-day experience. By the time I left, I felt burnt out, disrespected and badly knocked in my confidence. The experience stayed with me long after.
