Pros
Some talented and supportive colleagues at peer level. Modern, recently refurbished office building. Exposure to complex work and a high level of responsibility early on.
Cons
Performance management is based on a forced “stack ranking” system, where people are compared against each other rather than against clear standards. Good performers can be labelled as weak if they happen to be in a strong team. The rating curve creates “winners” and “losers” and drives competition between colleagues instead of collaboration. I saw information hoarding, poor training, and backstabbing behavior as people tried to protect their position. Feedback can be stored up rather than given in real time. In my case, issues that were never raised in one-to-ones or mid-year reviews appeared at year-end to justify a lower rating, instead of being used to help me improve. If you are rated “Inconsistent”, you can be moved onto a performance plan straight away, even if your overall performance across the year has been solid but slightly behind others. This makes the system very vulnerable to bias and subjectivity. Pay for the level of responsibility feels low (for example, around £27k for a Fraud Coordinator role), and if you are on a performance plan you will not receive a pay rise for that year. Increasing pressure to return to the office after a big refurbishment, with less focus on whether that actually makes work better or more sustainable for people. In my experience, HR and senior leadership did not always deal transparently with serious issues. Concerns about how complaints are handled when senior relationships are involved. I saw colleagues go off with stress and struggle to get meaningful support or reasonable adjustments. Advice such as “just breathe and focus more” did not match the seriousness of what people were dealing with. By the time I left, morale and stress levels in my area were very low, and many people felt worn down rather than developed or supported.