Pros
At a company level, CGS is not the worst place I have worked. There are professional people, there are managers who know how to communicate with employees and do their job properly. Unfortunately, my experience on the E.ON project was completely different.
Cons
The atmosphere within this team is, in my opinion, something that should not exist in a professional workplace. When you request time off, instead of receiving a clear and respectful answer, you may end up waiting days and sometimes receiving responses that feel more like mockery than professional communication. Nobody expects every vacation request to be automatically approved, but there is a huge difference between a reasonable refusal with an explanation and an attitude of “if you don’t like it, you can leave”. One of the biggest problems is the lack of support. When you need help, answers can take days or sometimes never come at all. In an already difficult and stressful project, this means you are left alone to figure things out by yourself. At the same time, the pressure for results is constant. What bothered me the most was the lack of respect shown toward employees. I witnessed conversations and comments that have no place in a serious company. This is not about normal jokes between colleagues, it is about attitudes and remarks that make people feel disrespected, ignored, or mocked when they ask for help or request something completely normal, such as taking their vacation. I have seen colleagues reaching exhaustion, constantly stressed, and mentally affected by the atmosphere within the team. When people start coming to work with anxiety and fear that they will be laughed at, criticized unfairly, or treated with superiority, we are no longer talking about a healthy work environment. Another disappointing aspect is the lack of involvement from higher management. The problems are visible to anyone who has worked here long enough, yet the impression is that nobody wants to step in or make real changes. As long as the numbers look good, the employees’ experience seems to become a secondary concern. I am writing this review because what I experienced on this project does not feel like a normal working environment, and people deserve to know what it feels like to work somewhere where pressure and fear seem to be used as management tools. Instead of motivation, support, and communication, I experienced constant pressure, a toxic atmosphere, and an approach based on intimidation. Employees are kept in a constant state of stress, with the feeling that they can be punished at any moment for results, even while working under difficult conditions and earning close to minimum wage. The most disturbing part is the way salary reduction has been presented as a threat if results are not considered good enough. Statements such as, “Those who do not have results, we will reduce their salary so we can give more to those who do”, create fear and insecurity. For someone already working for close to minimum wage, this is not motivation, it is psychological pressure. Employees should not feel threatened with financial punishment as a way of control. In Romania, salary is part of the employment contract, and changes to it are regulated by labor law. It should not be used as a tool to intimidate people or force performance through fear. From my perspective, this type of behavior feels closer to workplace bullying than healthy management. Constant criticism, excessive pressure, comparisons between colleagues, and the feeling that you have to work while constantly afraid directly affect people’s mental health. Employees are not just numbers in performance reports. They are people who come to work every day, try to do their best, and deserve respect, not threats, humiliation, and continuous stress. A healthy workplace should develop people, not mentally exhaust them. Results are achieved through support, training, communication, and respect, not through fear, pressure, and insecurity. Another aspect that shocked me was the way agent evaluations are handled. Monitoring and evaluating calls is completely normal and necessary in a call-center environment. The problem is not the existence of evaluations, the problem is how they are conducted. A proper evaluation should mean transparency, feedback, and professional development. It should include an analysis of the call, strengths, weaknesses, clear explanations of mistakes, and concrete recommendations for improvement. There should be a real discussion between the evaluator and the agent, so mistakes can be understood and corrected. Instead, on this project, the process feels more focused on finding someone to blame rather than helping people improve. You receive an email saying that one of your calls was reviewed at some point. There is no real discussion, no coaching, no follow-up, and no proper explanation about what went wrong and how you can improve in the future. Even worse, individual evaluations are sometimes communicated in front of the entire team. Instead of confidentiality and respect for the employee, mistakes become public, creating the feeling of, “You made a mistake, make sure it does not happen again, otherwise there will be consequences”. If the goal is truly performance improvement, where is the guidance? Where is the coaching? Where is the detailed analysis and support? My impression is that evaluations are used more as a pressure and intimidation tool rather than a professional development tool. An employee does not become better because they are embarrassed in front of colleagues. People improve when they receive clear feedback, support, and practical guidance.