Compare GDS Group vs University of the West of England BETASee how working at GDS Group vs. University of the West of England compares on a variety of workplace factors. By comparing employers on employee ratings, salaries, reviews, pros/cons, job openings and more, you'll feel one step ahead of the rest. All salaries and reviews are posted by employees working at GDS Group vs. University of the West of England. Learn more about each company and apply to jobs near you.
- GDS Group scored higher in 1 area: Compensation & Benefits.
- University of the West of England scored higher in 8 areas: Overall Rating, Career Opportunities, Work-life balance, Senior Management, Culture & Values, CEO Approval, % Recommend to a friend and Positive Business Outlook.
What Employees Say
- "Great people" was the most mentioned Pro at GDS Group.
- "Flexible working" was the most mentioned Pro at University of the West of England.
- "Boiler room" was the most mentioned Con at GDS Group.
- "Lectures" was the most mentioned Con at University of the West of England.
I have been working at GDS Group full-time for less than a year
- Above Average Salary for entry level sales position, as well as a half decent commission structure when adhered to. - Some competent managers and pod leaders that are unfortunately being micro... managed from above. - Flexible working hours and ability to work evening shifts/from home, although I feel this is out of necessity rather than generosity. - Good location and a nice office?
- As expected with many sales companies, the successes of the company will be attributed to the process and company itself rather than the individual, and the failures will be attributed to the... employees themselves, with the company looking to scapegoat individual performances for failures across the board rather than economic, political and environmental factors. Those who do have success applauded are those who abuse the system week in, week out, exhausting the same leads over and over and re-booking the same delegates constantly. One cannot help but notice that the business has flourished during the pandemic and as more people move back into the office, (although that looks to be backpedalling now, more on this later) business has started to slow. The business, of course, attributes this failure due to lack of effort from employees, rather than the over abundance of campaigns to be delivered, with the same executives being rang day in and day out with such short timescales, no employee has any time to build a new pipeline or portfolio, instead having to resort to using this same list that has been exhausted at this point. - Senior management has no ownership or specificity in any of their actions - there is no clear path of learning and development, there are no measures for if people fall behind target or are tracking to fall behind in the future, there aren't any personal development plans implemented or ongoing training. You are expected to hit target week after week, even when the odds are purposefully stacked against you knowingly, with the only response being stood on a podium and to be admonished for your actions and made to fear for your job security, with the only advice being "just make your calls and hit your KPIs." This would not be so bad if you could have true ownership of your number, instead this heavily relies on the quality of the campaign you are given, with some campaigns being very easy to fill with a wide criteria available, and others with such specific criteria and short turnarounds. (Imagine trying to get 5 CEOs in a specific field from specific companies to attend a 90 minute event in a 1 week turnaround) Particularly bad management has to be applauded from middle management with no sense of authority, agency or senior leadership at all, with no efforts made to improve the struggle of current employees, instead opting to push them to meet double their KPIs in hope that brute force ringing people will at one point, perhaps, result in a deal. All of these decisions are born from a "quick win" mentality - re-book the same clients, arrange as many roundtables as possible even if we can't fulfil them, and have short turnarounds of staff because people are more eager in their first two weeks before they inevitably get de-motivated. -COVID-19 management - I would normally reserve my judgement on this as this is a dynamic situation at the moment for all businesses involved, but I feel this has to be noted on. GDS' management of the COVID situation has been horrendous. For starters, when recruited for this job, you were promised a laptop so you could work from home full time. This was not the case. Our training group was brought into the office and worked full time for several weeks, not social distancing of course, slowly being moved into working from home as long as you had your own laptop. If you didn't have one, you had to work in the office full time. After this, we were expected to be in the office once or twice a week, which was acceptable, but as of this writing we are still expected and encouraged to do this despite government guidelines to work from home if you can. Which we all can, of course, after going out and buying our own laptops out of our own pocket. The situation of the pandemic has been repeatedly treated as a joke with the office being full to the brim upon several occasions. I have had colleagues tell me in confidence they are genuinely torn between their jobs or health being at risk as if they don't come into the office they feel they will face repercussions, and the alternative being at risk for COVID.
Advice to Management
- Long term business mapping - I am sure you are more aware of how to roadmap a business at length better than I ever could, but consider thinking about this. Who are employees to invest in long... term? What training could we give them? Who is a C tier employee who could be brought up to an A+ given the right training and motivation? Who is a flight risk and is it worth extra support to keep them on board, or is it worth having serious conversations around feedback and recruitment to ensure the right recruitment process and training is followed? - Real team structure and chain of command- I feel at the moment the teams are disjointed with a loose sense of pod leaders and upper management, with no real authority held apart from the positions at the very top, and to get a real decision you have to bypass 2-3 managers to get to the heart of the situation. I feel with the correct people and a real chain of command this would be avoided. Pick several trusted and experienced employees, give them real authority and delegate to them. At the moment, for example, I don't feel like the pod leaders are senior enough to speak to around anything other than my current campaign, directly above that is mostly an echo chamber of authoritative barking and recycled sales motivation, so to get a decision on anything serious I feel I would have to go above either of them. This is causing a massive lack of attention to detail, with many employees flying under the radar and either having no support and left to flounder, or to be harassed and pushed to just hit numbers as the senior staff have no experience in true training/coaching models. - Dedicated training/coaching staff/models - for a business with such high turnaround, it surprises me that there is no dedicated trainer or coach within the business. Even if they allocated an hour per person per week they would be able to make leaps and bounds with some employees, I feel. Most successful sales companies I have experienced have this to some degree, even if this is done by team/pod leaders and they have dedicated time each week with coaching and action plans, working with their team to make them better at what they do, otherwise why have pod leaders in the first place?
I have been working at University of the West of England part-time
flexible working contract, good pay, supportive, progression
large organisation, communication not always as good as it could be, numerous staff restructures