Pros
- Exposure to social media agency work
Cons
- Defensive leadership culture - Poor communication and transparency - High employee turnover - Limited psychological safety - D&I initiatives felt performative rather than embedded - Unclear onboarding and development processes - Employees may feel discouraged from raising concerns or challenging decisions I joined re:act genuinely excited to be there. I was transitioning into social media and was drawn to the agency because of how strongly leadership spoke about culture, diversity and inclusion, communication, career development, and employee growth. During the interview process, I left feeling inspired by the founders' stories and excited about the opportunity to learn from them. Unfortunately, the reality did not match what was sold to me. Within my first few weeks, I began noticing tension throughout the business. Agency meetings often felt uncomfortable, with visible friction between leadership and employees. Communication between teams lacked clarity, which frequently resulted in frustration, finger-pointing, and misunderstandings. At first, I assumed I was simply adjusting to a new environment. However, as I got to know more colleagues, including other new starters who had joined around the same time, I realised many of us were independently reaching the same conclusions. One of the biggest disappointments was diversity and inclusion. This was something that had been heavily discussed during recruitment, yet in practice it often felt like an afterthought. Events were sometimes organised at the last minute, attendance was inconsistent, and leadership involvement was limited. For a company that spoke so proudly about celebrating different cultures and backgrounds, there was a noticeable gap between the messaging and the reality. A particular incident significantly changed how I viewed the culture. A colleague who had joined around the same time as me requested a minor adjustment to her working hours due to health-related reasons and medication requirements. Following a disagreement with leadership regarding that request, she left the business abruptly, was escorted from the office, and was reportedly instructed not to speak with colleagues. Our team was given no information and we were unable to properly say goodbye. As a group, we were confused and concerned. We privately asked our manager if we could have a conversation to better understand what had happened and discuss concerns we had as a team. Instead of receiving reassurance or an open discussion, we were called into an immediate meeting with leadership that felt confrontational and intimidating. The focus quickly shifted away from our concerns and onto criticism of us for raising them. I remember us being yelled at by one CEO and told that we should never "summon" our manager and feeling as though we were being reprimanded for simply asking questions. I left that meeting shocked that a group of employees seeking clarity could be treated as though they had done something wrong. That moment changed the atmosphere for many of us. It became clear that questioning decisions or seeking transparency was not always welcomed. The turning point for me personally came when one of the CEOs encouraged me to provide honest feedback about my experience at the company. We had what I believed was a productive conversation, and I was specifically asked to follow up with my thoughts in writing. I did exactly that. My feedback was respectful, constructive, and focused on areas I believed could improve the employee experience. I shared concerns regarding communication, workplace culture, onboarding, training, and diversity initiatives. My intention was not to criticise the business for the sake of it. I genuinely wanted the company to succeed and believed that honest feedback was something leadership valued. What followed was one of the most disappointing professional experiences of my career. Rather than feeling that my feedback was welcomed or explored, I felt it was immediately dismissed. I was repeatedly reminded that I had only been with the company for a short period of time and therefore could not possibly understand the culture well enough to comment on it. The message I took away was that feedback was acceptable only if it aligned with leadership's existing views. What hurt most was that I had not offered feedback unprompted. I had been specifically encouraged to share it. I left that experience feeling embarrassed for speaking honestly and disappointed that what I believed would be a constructive conversation became something entirely different. From that point onward, my trust in the agency began to deteriorate. As my probation period progressed, communication became increasingly unclear. Repeated questions regarding probation reviews, expectations, and my future with the company often went unanswered or were delayed. This created a significant amount of anxiety and uncertainty at a time when clarity was most needed. My employment ultimately ended following allegations relating to company files that I strongly disputed. What was most upsetting was not simply the allegations themselves, but the process that followed. While on sick leave, I was unexpectedly locked out of company systems and later informed that disciplinary action was being pursued. Once locked out, I no longer had access to information that would have helped me understand and respond to the allegations being made. I repeatedly attempted to engage with the process, seek clarification, and provide context. However, throughout the experience conclusions had already been reached before I was given a meaningful opportunity to fully explain my position. It's also important to note that before these events unfolded, I had already sought medical support due to the level of stress I was experiencing while working at the agency. My doctor ultimately signed me off work and provided a medical certificate for a mental health-related leave of absence. I shared this information with the CEOs and believed it provided important context regarding my wellbeing. Unfortunately, I never felt that this was meaningfully acknowledged or taken into consideration throughout the process. Among the allegations raised against me was that I had authored an anonymous Glassdoor review critical of the company. I found this particularly upsetting because it reinforced a feeling I had already developed throughout my time there: that criticism was viewed as something to identify, challenge, and defend against rather than understand. Looking back, that experience is probably one of the reasons it took me so long to write this review. The entire situation left me feeling powerless, isolated, and unheard. Even now, what stays with me most is not the outcome itself but the feeling that my perspective never truly mattered. My truth, never mattered. The pattern I observed throughout my time at re:act was that employees who challenged decisions, questioned processes, or raised concerns often found themselves on the outside. There appeared to be an expectation that employees should support decisions or keep their mouths shut rather than challenge them, and that difficult conversations were welcome only when they aligned with CEOs perspective. I met some genuinely talented, hardworking, and kind people during my time there. Many of them made an otherwise difficult experience more bearable, and I remain grateful for those relationships. More than anything, this experience changed the way I viewed leadership. For a long time afterward, I found myself second-guessing senior leaders and questioning whether speaking honestly at work was worth the risk. That's not a lesson any employee should take away from a workplace.
