17 Oct 2024
EECO2 Response
2wThank you for this review. We'd rather engage with it properly than offer a polished non-answer.
A year or two is long enough to form a genuine view, so we won't suggest this one isn't sincerely held. We do see several points differently, though.
Salary. Every role is benchmarked annually against CIBSE and Hays data and held at mid-market as a floor, with a clear performance-linked path beyond it. "Low paid" is hard to square with that framework — though if there's a specific comparison behind it, we'd want to hear it.
Progression. Advancement tracks capability rather than time served, which won't suit everyone. The routes exist and are communicated openly — but we accept that having a framework and feeling its benefit aren't always the same thing.
Hiring and fit. Here we'll be candid. A strong engineer isn't automatically a strong consultant, and those new to the environment can be stretched quickly. We've sometimes let that mismatch persist too long, hoping people grow into the role — which isn't always fair on them or the team. It's an area we're actively sharpening.
Management and culture. We won't wave away words like "micro-management" or "blame". By way of context, some structures in place during that period — including a project management function since reshaped — didn't serve teams as well as intended, and we've adjusted. The broader characterisations are harder to address without specifics we'd have valued discussing at the time.
Retention and capability. Some movement is simply the nature of specialist consultancy. Our confidence in our people is reflected in the trust of a demanding global blue-chip client base — and that isn't an accident.
We're sorry this wasn't the right fit. If something went unsaid, the offer of a frank conversation still stands — leaving the business doesn't close that door.