Control Risks reviews about "benefit"

Limited raises and bonuses Too much politicking getting in the way of running a business. Limited visibility on career progression. Becoming too London-centric.

Long hours and heavy workload (although the company does not encourage to work overtime) Not very tolerant about junior team members' mistakes Promotion opportunities can be limited to very few team members; but it is understandable

Working in threat intelligence there feels like you're back at secondary school. Firstly, all of your work gets marked out of 10 in an opaque contradictory process. Second, the "management" choose a select few to join their clique and put on the non-transparent path to promotion. The management have no experience in managing people and are out of their depth. They are haemorrhaging employees - 11 have left in the last year in a team of about 26. The "Researcher" position is constantly advertised on LinkedIn as they are desperate to backfill for the people they've lost. Sometimes they held sessions to chat about how things were going and areas for improvement. You quickly realised that anyone who provided constructive feedback would be punished with bad scores or mean comments being made about them amongst management. I still cannot believe some of the comments I heard from them about junior colleagues. The only way to survive is to keep your head down, stay "in" with the cliquey management and definitely don't be honest if anyone asks you for feedback on how you find the process. Aside from the toxic environment, the work is interesting for the first few months and most of the people are great. After a while, you hit a ceiling for the OSINT/ intelligence skills you can gain and then the only direction is to take on more responsibility in admin, recruitment or training new starters. The work is dogged in technicalities with every meeting introducing new guidance that will be scrapped the next week. Also, the salary is not enough to survive comfortably in London - salt in the wound when the management bragged about how much money threat intel brings into the firm.

Toxic work culture (burnout culture): employees were expected to begin and end work outside of conventional working hours, were commended for doing so, and were neglected if they were unable or unwilling. Despite the sensitive nature of the work, management ignored efforts from human resources to offer mental health interventions. Given that the project operated according to regulated peer-to-peer feedback and scoring systems, the culture revolved around constant criticism among fellow team members. Exclusive and cliquey team management: the original team members are now senior management, and they are gatekeepers of responsibility and respect on the team. Their "inner circle" is exclusive and it has caused many employees to feel ignored and outcast, with their own learning, development, and progression curbed as a result. The senior management is receptive to feedback, but if not agreed with, the feedback will not be incorporated into team changes. There were issues with a lack of respect and empathy on the team, causing team members to feel degraded and excluded. The team has lost many members since the project's founding, many of whom have left after being there for under a year. Resistant to organisational and cultural change: there were recurrent issues with the structure of the project, resulting from its nascence. However, suggestions to adapt the project and the team organisation were not taken seriously when emerging from lower and middle management. The scoring system was by far the most toxic addition to the team's management culture, encouraging an ethos of competition and exclusion. Talented, smart, and highly qualified individuals on the team, but management and organisation of the project does not incorporate their value. Many team members are unhappy but feel they will be rewarded for their toil. Many have found this not to be the case unless they were able to work themselves sick or gain the social approval of upper management. Limited learning and personal initiative: the work is interesting, but could be done by someone with very few qualifications. Does not require the amount of previous experience and skill that is asked in the job posting. Efforts to engage more with the organisation and management of the project were prevented by upper management. After being on the team for over a year, I did not find that I left the job with a proportionate amount of new knowledge. Underpay: I believe the employees on this team were underpaid for this work, despite the high profitability of the project itself.

-Opportunities for advancement may be unclear at times. -Lack of communication between liaisons and analysts

Low pay, compensation, benefits and promotion

Poor bonuses and increment. Company favors the whites, not a good place for career progression.

Senior management are primarily white and male. The company is very good at making it look like they care - a big push on employee welfare awareness this year, yet it hasn't been put into action. A lot of decisions made behind closed doors, no transparency. People scratching each others' backs to get ahead.

Our business unit does not maintain healthy work life balance.