Run the other way... - Account Servicing TEAM LEWIS Employee Review

I would strongly advise prospective employees to look beyond the surface before joining this organization. While it may present itself as a place of growth and opportunity, my experience suggests deep-rooted structural and leadership issues that significantly impact both employee wellbeing and client outcomes. One of the most concerning patterns is the mismanagement of roles. “Training” positions are routinely used to fill gaps left by high turnover, with junior staff or trainees taking on full workloads previously handled by permanent employees without appropriate compensation or support. What is framed as a learning opportunity often feels like a cost-saving measure at the expense of employee development. There is also a clear lack of accountability across Malaysia’s market leads and HR. When issues are raised, they are frequently deflected rather than addressed. Management redirects concerns to HR, while HR points back to management, creating a frustrating loop where employees are left without resolution or support. This lack of ownership fosters a culture where problems persist and morale declines. Malaysia leadership style is another major concern. The environment often feels top-down and directive, with leadership avoiding high-level responsibilities such as managing difficult client relationships or renewal conversations. Instead, these are pushed onto junior team members, including trainees, which not only places undue pressure on them but also raises questions about leadership capability and accountability. It is also worth noting that senior local leadership is often absent from client-facing situations altogether, rarely joining key meetings where their presence and accountability would be expected. Compounding this is a concerning lack of transparency upward. There is a tendency for local leadership to present an overly favourable version of reality to regional or global management during ATF/MTF calls, which does not reflect the actual state of client relationships or internal challenges. This disconnect prevents meaningful intervention and allows systemic issues to persist unchecked. At the leadership level, there also appears to be a misalignment in priorities. Rather than focusing on core responsibilities such as driving new business and addressing ongoing client losses, there is a disproportionate emphasis on “championing” internal initiatives such as AI. While innovation is important, this focus often feels like a distraction from more pressing commercial realities, particularly when multiple accounts have been lost and existing client relationships are under strain. It creates the impression that strategic narratives are being used to shift attention away from performance gaps. Culturally, there appears to be a stronger focus on maintaining external perception than addressing internal realities. Despite high attrition rates, entire teams turning over, and key accounts showing repeated signs of dissatisfaction, there is little evidence of meaningful change in leadership approach. The organization has reportedly lost a significant number of clients within a short span of time, yet this does not appear to have triggered any substantial reflection or corrective action. Instead, the system seems to reward those who push teams to their limits rather than those who lead effectively and sustainably. From a client servicing perspective, there has been a noticeable decline in standards. Basic errors such as incorrect reporting and mismanaged communications have eroded client trust. In some cases, these issues escalated into more serious situations that directly impacted client confidence during critical moments. Longstanding clients have expressed multiple rounds of dissatisfaction and feedback, yet little to no action is taken to address these concerns, reinforcing the perception that leadership is either disengaged or unwilling to take responsibility. Additionally, understaffed accounts and inconsistent senior oversight have created avoidable challenges in maintaining service quality and continuity. There are also concerns around professionalism and judgment in client interactions, including the sharing of irrelevant or sensitive information that led to confusion on the client side. Internally, a lack of timely leadership support during key deliverables further compounds these issues, leaving junior teams to navigate high-stakes situations with difficult clients without adequate guidance. Finally, the organization appears to be caught in a cycle of attrition. Frequent staffing changes, particularly at junior and mid levels, have created instability, with a significant concentration of departures occurring within the same reporting line. Over a relatively short period since mid-2024, a notable number of employees reporting to a single account lead have resigned, yet there appears to be little to no intervention from HR or senior management to address the underlying issues driving this trend. Management styles in certain teams can be overly controlling, even extending into periods of approved leave. Being contacted persistently during time off for non-urgent matters, and then criticized for taking leave, creates unnecessary stress and impacts mental wellbeing. The offboarding process further reflects poorly on leadership practices. When employees resign, even when citing better opportunities, their notice periods are often filled with excessive workloads rather than structured handovers, placing them under undue pressure instead of enabling a proper transition. This environment discourages transparency, as employees may feel compelled to soften or change their reasons for leaving to avoid uncomfortable scrutiny. Even then, responses to resignations can feel dismissive or interrogative rather than constructive. There have also been instances where employees are told, upon resigning, that promotions or improved opportunities were supposedly in progress for them. This is difficult to reconcile with prior messaging during their tenure, where similar requests were often deflected due to “market conditions.” Such contradictions can come across as disingenuous and contribute to a broader sense of mistrust within the organization. Taken together, these patterns reinforce a cycle where retention challenges are neither acknowledged nor addressed meaningfully, ultimately perpetuating the same issues for those who remain. While there are individuals within the organization who are capable and supportive, the broader systemic issues make it difficult to recommend this workplace. Meaningful change would require a fundamental shift in leadership accountability, employee support structures, and overall organizational culture.