TSS operates as a typical Private Equity company, buying established software companies and stripping costs to preserve the bottom line. This works particularly well in industries where the cost of change is high and infrequent. The formula is classic; slash investment, people and commitments to the extreme, as customers cannot leave easily and without high costs. This is the opposite end of the cycle to start-ups. Sounds like a great place to work? Well that depends who's doing the slashing? TSS operating companies are small. Very small. Typically sub 100 persons in industries where the market leader has more than 20,000. Yet curiously any appointment at Manager level or higher must pass an assessment by a company called: Mercuri Urval. If you haven’t heard of them, I highly recommend you take a close look at them, and decide if you want to waste your time any further. On their front page is stated: “Say goodbye to failed leadership appointments”, and, “Only 50-60% of leader selection decisions are successful”, claiming that their science based approach gives them a specificity of 98% in predicting if an appointment will be successful after 2 years. Statistically this means you have a 40 - 50% chance of passing? The only caveat being that a Manager appointment isn’t exactly a CEO, SVP, VP or Director appointment, is it? Mercuri Urval are seemingly very proud of this ability as seen on their website, and their consultant delighted in telling me that if a company is going to pay an executive hundred of thousands of dollars, that their scientific method accurately rules out the majority of candidates. Fact check on this: TSS are not offering hundreds of thousands in salary. They offered the equivalent salary of a sales rep at a competitor, a car allowance which would pay for a Ford Fiesta, and the legal minimum pension. Sound Executive enough? Good. The science is where it gets interesting. Despite a 10 week process, 3 days notice was given at week 9 that a Mercuri Urval assessment would be required, further stating that there is nothing that a candidate can do to change the outcome of the assessment. The assessment involves 3 cognitive tests, multiple random questionnaires, an online personality test of 1hr+ and a 3hr interview with a psychologist. All from a company claiming to understand executive leadership (as if Exec’s have this much time at their disposal). Indeed perplexing, as King's College London (an organization more synonymous with science) advises preparing extensively for any cognitive test, and if not you will almost certainly fail. Lying to candidates is a great virtue, it seems? If you are not extremely confident in numerical sequence, abstract reasoning, spatial, logical and language problem solving you will fail. It can be studied for, and if you have not done one recently, less than 5 - 10 hrs will not be sufficient. A combination of these online tests will profile you, according to their not so easily found science. This is an area of science where a staggering 39% of psychology studies fail reproducibility tests, and less than that found significant results, which is where the process got even more bizarre. Their model fails to factor in the inherent risks and safety aspects of our industry, which experienced persons are highly sensitive to for good reasons. It therefore produced wildly different assumptions to any of Mercuri Urvals peers. Not entirely surprising given their stated intent. Clearly the most basic understanding of business is lacking; that people are promoted, or simply moved, or that ventures are divested in. An utterly woeful ignorance of the industry is widespread in the process, completely unaware of significant global economic events which have marked the last 15 yrs, how these have shaped the industry, and the seismic shift in cultural change within the software industry itself which are well published. In conclusion, there are simply too many red flags to count. The most sought after companies in the industry to work for, put social purpose, culture and people first. Most go to great lengths to build meaningful workplaces, and tell outsiders about efforts on diversity, equity and inclusion. Most will be multi-nationals offering a career’s worth of development opportunities. This will not be the case, and I cannot see any good reason put forward why a person would invest valuable time in their career at TSS, when the rest of the industry is so far ahead.