Control Risks reviews about "team"

cant think of any for now

Nothing endemic in organisation; line management can be an issue though

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.

work can be challenging to handle sometimes

- No investment in employee's professional development. For the Business Intelligence practice, research and writing are pretty much the only hard skills you have as a researcher. They might argue OSINT skills, but it's largely basic surface web research and is not transferrable to actual OSINT roles. - Fixation on billable man-hours, narrowly defined as any work tagged to a project. 1) The high KPI on this makes it virtually impossible for a junior employee to spend time on personal development, though there's not much resource on that, either. 2) There are non-billable hours that are still essential to winning billable projects, such as proposal writing and scoping; however, it is perplexing that the management has decided that these are not part of productive hours. As a result, sloppy proposals, underestimation of project price and tight timeline are common, and the directors would leave it to the project team to deliver anyway. - Stagnant if not declining industry, with declining pool of clients and project value. As such, the most common way companies gain advantage is to undercut price or promise faster turnover. There's a limit to how fast the project team could realistically complete a project without either sacrificing quality or work overtime every single time. Any feedback on this has fallen on deaf ears. - Fixation on revenue means little to no effort on employee welfare to retain them. Systemic issue such as described above is the source of dissatisfaction, brain drain and poor morale, and this couldn't be offset by random wellness sessions instigated by HR. - No transparency from leadership, even on the most basic things like tracking our own monthly KPIs. Salary discussion is actively discouraged. No, it is a good practice to minimise information asymmetry and ensure fair pay and to prohibit that just worsens your reputation. - Compensate your employees accordingly. So many are offered bottom of the pay range despite their track record showing otherwise. Company is only willing to bump up compensation when they're threatening to leave. This shows you have the budget all along, but aren't willing to reward them if they had stayed. Why is that? Also, bonus is really low. - No clear career progression, which has been largely based on tenure. I'm beating the dead horse here, but I still think it's necessary to say that having mostly Caucasian leadership regardless of the office location (even Asia) despite having locals as the majority of mid- to junior-level employees indicates a lack of willingness to localise the practice at the very least. As I have said, there are so many highly, and even over-, qualified people at the lower levels.