A Once-Great Company Undone by Greed, Favouritism, and Mismanagement
Pros
Flexible working arrangements in some teams and occasional autonomy if you avoid politics. A handful of projects remain technically interesting, driven by those on the ground rather than leadership.
Cons
I joined Pen Test Partners with genuine optimism, drawn by its early reputation for technical excellence, integrity, and a strong sense of community. For a time, that reputation was deserved; the company was full of talented people, open collaboration, and genuine pride in its work. Sadly, that culture has eroded beyond recognition. The 2020 restructuring was the beginning of the decline. What was positioned as a strategic “realignment” quickly revealed itself as a poorly managed reshuffle that drove away a large portion of the company’s most capable staff. Many of those who left had been there since the company’s formative years their departures destabilised operations and morale, but the leadership’s public line dismissed it all as “normal turnover.” In reality, it marked a shift from a people-focused consultancy to one increasingly controlled by a small, insular group. The company’s response to COVID-19 further widened that divide. While employees were adapting to remote delivery and maintaining client commitments under immense pressure, leadership particularly The Ken Munro Show came across as tone deaf and detached. His internal communications often lacked empathy or awareness of the real challenges staff were facing. That disconnect grew worse when the company announced an across-the-board pay cut, supposedly temporary, that would only be reversed once the business achieved an average of £1 million in revenue per month for several consecutive months. The issue wasn’t just the condition itself it was that management failed to acknowledge what the company’s prepandemic revenue actually was. The bar was set unrealistically high, effectively ensuring the pay cuts became permanent. Many staff interpreted this not as prudence, but as greed creeping in, especially given the continued spending by partners on non-essential travel, vanity projects, and social events. It sent a clear message: austerity for staff, indulgence for leadership. This period cemented the partner/employee divide. Partners and close associates remained insulated, while everyone else bore the financial and emotional cost. Pay cuts, lack of bonuses, and unrealistic performance expectations became the norm, while senior figures publicly congratulated themselves for “staying resilient and being like family.” Over time, what used to be a culture of mutual respect and technical pride has devolved into favouritism, politics, and fear of speaking up. Promotions are often decided by proximity to leadership rather than capability or results. Constructive feedback is treated as disloyalty. It’s well known internally that there’s an “inner circle” aka those who have the ear of management and are rewarded accordingly and everyone else is expected to fall in line. Financial management has been erratic and, at times, ethically questionable. There have been clear examples of poor oversight: redundancies announced one week and rehiring the same roles under new titles the next, unexplained budget shifts, and inconsistent financial narratives that seem to change depending on who’s asking the question. Staff are frequently told that the company can’t afford pay rises or bonuses, yet there’s never a shortage of funds for international travel, rebranding exercises, or lavish events. The sense of transparency that once defined the company has completely disappeared. Decisions are made in private, outcomes are spun to fit a preferred narrative, and the results of internal surveys which would likely confirm widespread discontent are quietly buried. Employees are told to “trust leadership,” but leadership shows little sign of trusting its people. Gender inequality and lack of representation are still major issues. Female employees are significantly underrepresented in technical and management roles, often relegated to administrative or event-support tasks. When this has been raised, dismissive and even flippant comments from senior figures have only reinforced how out of touch leadership has become. Morale has plummeted as a result of all these factors. The best people have left, and those who remain are exhausted. There’s little sense of purpose left beyond survival. What was once a dynamic, respected consultancy has become a vanity project protected by loyalists, focused more on optics and legacy than genuine progress. Yet, despite everything, many of the individual contributors; consultants, testers, and technical leads remain exceptional. They care deeply about their work and clients, often going above and beyond in difficult circumstances. They are the only reason the company still functions. Sadly, their efforts are consistently undermined by poor leadership, broken promises, and a refusal to confront uncomfortable truths.
