Pros
Free coffee and soft drinks Good opportunities for fully funded international conference travel (role dependent)
Cons
Limited day-to-day leadership and weak line management. In my case, 1:1s were infrequent for long periods and there was little oversight, direction, or feedback on objectives, including during probation. Prolonged leadership vacancy created a real delivery and morale issue. After the team lead left, the interim arrangement also ended, and the team went extended periods without senior oversight. This left less experienced staff trying to provide direction alongside their normal workloads, and work allocation became inconsistent. At times, some people had very little meaningful work because priorities and ownership were not being actively managed. Communication and information sharing were inconsistent. Important details about deadlines, expectations, and opportunities were not shared in a timely or transparent way, which made it hard to plan and deliver work to a good standard. Raising concerns did not feel psychologically safe. When issues were raised through internal channels, the response felt more focused on discouraging open discussion than resolving the underlying problems. Career development and progression pathways were unclear, with limited visibility of how to grow or how opportunities are allocated across the team. Pay felt below market for AI roles relative to the responsibilities. The organisation felt top-heavy, with many senior roles and layers of process supporting a relatively small number of people doing hands-on research and delivery.