Pros
Before the current CEO there would be too many to list. At the moment very few. 34 days’ holiday would be the only one worth mentioning.
Cons
Under the previous CEO Lhasa was a fantastic and successful company. It understood, and had great relationships with its customers. It valued its employees and treated them with respect. It was hugely successful – significantly growing its income and customer base year on year. Then the previous CEO retired and a new CEO was appointed from within. Things continued as normal for a while and Lhasa continued to thrive. However, at some point the CEO decided that Lhasa was not successful, that it was doing things all wrong and he wanted to make it “better”. So, he set about changing things – but he never communicated or told anyone (as far as I am aware) what “better” looks like. I can only assume because he is either unable or unwilling to communicate what “better” actually is. He brought in consultants (Vanguard) and paid a fortune in fees to them, and then simply ignored the majority of their findings. He then restructured the organisation with no obvious rationale, and removed highly skilled, successful and experienced senior leaders, replacing them with a clique of “yes people”. As others have pointed out in their reviews, the CEO is now essentially micro-managing the entire organisation to achieve this “better”. The result is an organisation that is now completely toxic – staff cannot think for themselves and act under any form of their own initiative (not really ideal for an organisation that prides itself on scientific innovation). All decisions must align entirely with whatever the CEO thinks at that specific moment – and his opinion may change at any time and without warning. Staff are no longer valued, but some might be tolerated for as long as they tow management’s line and boost their egos. The effect of this on employees has been nothing short of disastrous – what once was a happy, vibrant place is now filled with unease, anxiety, fear and anger. This is reflected in the number of people that left the organisation in 2021; about 50 or almost a third of all employees. As someone else has pointed out this is being explained as natural attrition and people leaving because they cannot handle change. Only a fool would believe that – Lhasa’s natural attrition has always been low by industry standards and people who don’t like change will not suddenly make the biggest change possible by moving organisations. Talented, successful and passionate people are leaving because they cannot in good conscience stay with or be seen to support such a regime. Lhasa is now, unfortunately, rotten to the core and I would strongly advise any potential employees to look elsewhere. There is hope though. There are still some highly talented and passionate individuals working there, although their number decline by the week. And this level of incompetence can only continue for so long.