Pros
Flexible work arrangements Flexibility is one of the few genuinely positive aspects. However, it has gone too far. The office is often half-empty, in-person collaboration barely exists, and finding support or guidance is difficult. The result is a chaotic and fragmented working environment. Relatively good pay Operational staff are paid reasonably well relative to similar organisations. Middle and senior managers, however, appear significantly overpaid considering how little they contribute — which may explain why many of them stay despite the ongoing decline of the Institute.
Cons
Lack of diversity There is practically no diversity at mid- and senior-management levels. These roles are overwhelmingly dominated by white British men. Recent attempts at promoting diversity seem to rely more on tokenistic complicity rather than genuine inclusion or merit-based decisions. Incompetent leadership The senior leaders who remain lack both competence and leadership ability. The institute has no clear vision, and communication has deteriorated significantly in recent years. Decision-making feels disconnected, slow, and poorly thought out. Secrecy and questionable practices There is now widespread secrecy around pay rises, promotions, and bonus criteria. Certain individuals appear to progress rapidly without transparency or proper process, while others simply vanish from the organisation. Recent redundancy rounds feel more like a cleansing process than a legitimate attempt to stabilise or improve the institute’s position. No values and no accountability There is zero accountability at leadership level. People come and go, but no one is ever held responsible for the damage they cause on their way out. The institute’s stated values exist only on paper — nobody follows them anymore, and they play no role in everyday behaviour or decision-making.