A Mixed Bag of Compensation and Concerns - Research Associate Crown Bioscience Employee Review

1.0
12 Jan 2024
Recommend
CEO approval
Business outlook

Pros

One of the redeeming aspects of working at Crownbio is the relatively decent remuneration package and insurance benefits provided to employees.

Cons

Clock-in, Clock-out Rigidity: As mentioned by other reviewers, the clock-in, clock-out system raises concerns and it is really rare to have such a rigid system in the research field in Singapore. The company fails to compensate for extra hours spent on practice or paperwork, and there's a questionable stance when working less than 8 hours a day. This policy seems to prioritize physical presence over actual results, fostering an environment that may not be conducive to productivity. Feedback Illusion: Higher management claims to value feedback and questions from their employees. However, the reality appears to be different. They always have excuses to explain and make everything seem to be reasonable, but the explanation they provide doesn't answer the question raised. Problems are not effectively addressed, and employees expressing concerns may face the risk of being labeled troublesome. The use of micromanagement tactics to discourage feedback further impedes an open and constructive work culture. Health and Safety Oversight: A significant concern is the lack of welfare for the RAs, particularly in terms of health. Despite handling mice and tumor samples, employees are not provided with essential vaccinations such as Hepatitis B and Tetanus. This oversight poses potential health risks to the RAs and raises questions about the company's commitment to employee well-being. Misleading Job Descriptions: The company's job descriptions may be misleading, creating false expectations for employees. While there's an emphasis on research during interviews, the actual role of Research Assistants seems to be more about following orders and conducting experiments only. This disparity between expectations and reality can lead to dissatisfaction among employees. Ineffective HR: The Human Resources department seems to fall short in addressing employee concerns. Face-to-face interactions with HR are limited, with meaningful discussions only occurring during exit interviews. Additionally, blaming employees for expressing some facts during exit interviews does not reflect a proactive or supportive HR approach.

avatar
Crown Bioscience Response
2y
Thank you for taking the time to provide detailed feedback on your experience at Crown Bioscience. We take all feedback seriously as we continuously strive to improve our workplace environment and policies. We acknowledge your concerns regarding the rigidity of our clock-in, clock-out system and the lack of compensation for extra hours spent on practice or paperwork. We understand the importance of fostering a work culture that prioritizes productivity and results over physical presence, and we will review our policies to ensure they align with these principles. We have recently made improvements to our overtime allowance policy to ensure that employees are fairly compensated for their additional hours worked. The clock-in, clock-out system is essential for accurately computing overtime pay, and we believe it is necessary to maintain transparency and fairness in our compensation practices. Regarding your feedback on the management's response to employee concerns, we apologize if you felt that your feedback was not effectively addressed. We also want to highlight that we regularly hold townhall meetings to address concerns and feedback from our employees. These meetings provide a platform for open communication and allow us to keep our employees informed about company updates and initiatives. We are committed to fostering an open and constructive work culture where all employees feel heard and valued. We will continue to improvise our feedback mechanisms and management practices to ensure that employee concerns are addressed in a timely and meaningful manner. We have taken note of your concerns regarding health and safety oversight, especially the absence of essential vaccinations for employees handling mice and tumor samples. Ensuring the well-being of our employees is paramount to us, and we are committed to reviewing our health and safety protocols to ensure compliance with industry standards and best practices. We also appreciate your feedback on job descriptions and the effectiveness of our HR department. In terms of job descriptions, we strive to ensure that they accurately reflect the roles and responsibilities of our employees. However, we understand that there may be discrepancies between expectations and reality in some cases. We will review our job descriptions to ensure they accurately reflect the roles and responsibilities of our employees. Additionally, we will take steps to improve communication and support from our HR department to address employee concerns in a proactive and supportive manner. Thank you again for sharing your insights and suggestions. Your feedback will help us make necessary improvements to create a positive and supportive work environment for all employees.

Explore other reviews about Crown Bioscience

5.0
16 Oct 2024
Recommend
CEO approval
Business outlook

Pros

small company with warm atmosphere

Cons

average pay, legal and HR are less experienced

1.0
23 May 2026
Anonymous employee
Recommend
CEO approval
Business outlook

Pros

Crown Bioscience has real scientific assets, capable technical teams, and a portfolio that should be much stronger than it is. There are smart, hardworking people across the organization who want to do good work and serve clients well. The company has legitimate strengths in oncology models, translational services, and scientific execution.

Cons

The biggest problem is leadership. The company’s potential is undermined by a culture that rewards control, internal politics, and performative alignment over clear strategy, accountability, and commercial execution. In my experience, senior leadership created an environment where dissent was treated as disloyalty, questions were reframed as attitude problems, and employees were expected to manage upward around fragile, insecure egos rather than focus on customers, products, and growth. One senior leader in particular operated less like an executive partner and more like a line manager obsessed with correction, control, and public positioning. The result was a workplace where people learned to self-censor, over-document, and avoid risk rather than solve problems directly. There was a serious gap between the company’s stated ambition and its operating reality. Commercial strategy was fragmented. Priorities shifted without disciplined governance. Roadmaps were more performative than actionable. Cross-functional work often depended on personalities rather than process. Instead of empowering experienced people to fix obvious business issues, leadership seemed more interested in protecting turf and controlling narratives. The most damaging part was the disconnect between the quality of the scientific platform and the quality of the management culture. Crown Bio has enough technical capability to compete meaningfully, but it is held back by weak organizational discipline, unclear decision rights, lack of accountability, and leaders who appear threatened by directness, expertise, or independent judgment. This is not a place I would recommend for anyone who expects real ownership. If you are looking for a role where you can diagnose problems, build structure, challenge assumptions, and drive execution, be careful. The organization may say it wants transformation, but the culture does not consistently support the kind of candor and autonomy transformation requires.

See reviews by: Helpful|Rating|Date|All