Deeply flawed and inequitable pay structure
The pay framework is one of the weakest aspects of the company. While the graduate scheme advertises incremental salary progression, this falls apart in practice. Graduate starting salaries have been repeatedly increased to keep pace with inflation, yet existing employees receive no corresponding uplift. The result is that newly hired graduates can earn more than mid-level consultants with several years of experience, which is demoralising and fundamentally unfair.
Even more concerning is the fact that developers can leave the business for a short period and return on a market-rate salary - often £5-10k higher than peers at the same level who remained loyal. This sends a very clear message: staying is financially punished, while leaving (even briefly) is rewarded.
Performance culture prioritises visibility over value
Performance ratings appear to be heavily influenced by proximity to senior leadership rather than technical ability or meaningful contribution. Individuals who invest significant time in socialising with executives-often at the expense of actual delivery-can receive higher performance ratings than genuinely capable developers. This encourages performative behaviour and brown-nosing rather than good engineering, collaboration, or professionalism.
Promotion criteria and project placement actively hinder career progression
Promotion eligibility is driven more by arbitrary technicalities than actual performance. In most cases, employees are rejected for promotion simply for not having spent a specific number of years at the company-despite this not being listed as an official requirement anywhere. This means that even those who consistently outperform peers can be blocked from progressing for reasons entirely unrelated to capability or impact.
Compounding this, the company requires experience across multiple client projects to be considered for promotion, yet frequently refuses to move people off its largest client. This is done with full knowledge that remaining on a single long-running account actively damages an individual’s chances of promotion. Employees are effectively trapped in roles that benefit the business while their own career progression is knowingly sacrificed.
Chaotic and constantly changing review processes
The performance review and promotion frameworks change so often that even the people responsible for implementing them appear unclear on how they work. Criteria shift mid-cycle, guidance is inconsistent, and expectations are often communicated after decisions have already been made. Employees are treated as test subjects for half-baked process experiments, with little regard for the impact on their careers, morale, or wellbeing.
Toxic culture and serious safeguarding concerns
There are serious issues around accountability and employee safety. In one instance, an individual was reportedly caught taking photographs of colleagues without their knowledge or consent. Rather than facing meaningful consequences, this person was later promoted into a line management role overseeing young graduates joining the company. This represents a significant safeguarding failure and severely undermines trust in leadership judgement and values.
Executive behaviour actively discourages speaking up
Company-wide quarterly sessions are positioned as open forums for discussion, yet questions raised by employees have been publicly mocked by executives. This has created an environment where people feel unsafe raising concerns under their own names. When employees turned to anonymous questions to protect themselves from potential repercussions, anonymous submissions were banned outright. When staff found workarounds by joining sessions under generic names, all public questions were removed entirely, and leadership began selectively choosing which questions were visible and answered. Transparency appears performative rather than genuine.
Poorly handled redundancies and lack of empathy
Recent redundancies, particularly affecting testers, were announced shortly before Christmas with very little warning. The timing and manner of communication demonstrated a striking lack of empathy and consideration for those impacted, further damaging trust in senior leadership.
Erosion of flexibility and poorly planned return-to-office mandates
Mandatory office attendance has increased from one day per week to two, with clear intentions to move to three in the near future. This shift has significantly disrupted the lives of employees who joined under explicit promises of flexibility, particularly those with caring or familial commitments.
Adding to this, an ODC has been introduced for a specific client that is effectively a monitored, CCTV-covered workspace. This facility does not have sufficient seating capacity to support all employees on that client being in the office three days a week, let alone accommodate those who also choose to attend. The result is a significant logistical issue that highlights how poorly thought through these decisions are, with policies implemented before feasibility or employee impact are properly considered.
