Pros
- Exposure different culture and projects, stakeholders and partners
Cons
If you value meritocracy, transparency, and basic professionalism, think carefully before joining the Executive Office. In my experience, decision-making was driven by personal loyalty and sycophancy rather than measurable performance and track-record, and formal guidelines on promotion were treated as optional when they became inconvenient.
Promotions and recognition often appeared disconnected from documented outcomes. Processes that should have required objective criteria, consistent scoring, and HR-aligned checks were handled informally, with shifting rationales and post-hoc explanations. The result was a workplace where talented people spent more time managing politics than delivering results, and where doing excellent work did not at all translate into fair opportunities.
The culture strongly rewards flattery. The fastest way to “shine” is not to exceed targets or demonstrate leadership, it’s to stay agreeable and servile, offer constant praise upward, and avoid raising legitimate concerns. People who ask for clarity, evidence, or adherence to policy may find themselves quietly isolated, mischaracterised, or blamed for issues they didn’t create.
A final caution: be careful around senior “gatekeeper” who controls executive office access, messaging, and narratives around leadership. In my experience, they are highly skilled at reframing events, triangulating colleagues, and shaping perceptions while maintaining plausible deniability. Treat conversations as transactional, keep everything in writing, and document decisions meticulously for your own good, never trust the gatekeeper.
Overall, I would not recommend working in this office unless you are comfortable operating in an environment where optics outrank substance and where policy compliance depends on who benefits.