Chief of Staff Jobs in the UK (No ghost jobs, direct from employers)

Pros: Good people to work with, free food once a week

Cons: No recognition of hard work. You may stay at the same level forever while delivering and taking the responsibilities of a Senior for years. Even if you overachieve in every competency matrix or goal they set, you'll still not gain anything and they won't even have the decency to think of some decent excuse or feedback. They encourage job hopping, that's why everyone leaves very often. It's known that salaries may vary too much among people that provide the same output all the time. Also, if you're a new hire you get more than everyone that's been there no matter for how long. That's why they are also not transparent with the salary ranges they have. Constant restructures just so that leadership can show off some "impact" while in reality they just make things harder for everyone and slow our progress. People come and go all the time resulting in complete mess. Too often a new leader is hired, he changes everything even if it's clearly not beneficial and everyone disagrees just to prove they're doing something. Then they leave after a short time in order to do the same thing elsewhere and they leave behind them every single thing they found now destroyed. Then the next new leader comes and reverts things back to how they were before the previous leader and so on... Many people in various non-engineering departments (e.g. product, design) exist like parasites. They are incompetent and offer too little or nothing at all and they pretend they're working too much while actually delegating their work and responsibilities to others.

Pros: Top culture, great people, interesting product

Cons: some sloppy design and decision making

Pros: Great supportive colleagues, private health insurance

Cons: Goals, priorities, processes, and expectations change so frequently that sustained delivery becomes almost impossible. No matter how much you deliver, it is never enough. Recognition is rare, scrutiny is constant. You can do 99 things right, but all the focus will be on the one thing that wasn't perfect. Feedback is a one-way street, alternative viewpoints are dismissed. With very little transparency, you’re left guessing where you stand and what success actually looks like. Instructions are vague, last-minute, and delivered without proper context. You’re expected to somehow guess what’s wanted, only to be judged harshly when the output doesn’t match an unspoken or half-formed expectation. You rework the same tasks multiple times, trying to chase moving targets, while your BAU responsibilities fall behind. Then you’re criticised for that as well. Over time, you stop pushing back. Not because you agree, but because it’s futile. Alternative perspectives aren’t welcomed, so you default to saying yes and focusing on compliance just to preserve your sanity and avoid wasting more time. This is not growth. It’s not empowerment. It’s not a “fast-paced” environment in the healthy sense. It’s closer to a 1950s classroom or military camp, where authority outweighs thinking, and obedience is confused with performance. If you’re looking for autonomy, clarity, or trust, this is not be the right place. Expectations are unrealistic. Success criteria shift mid-execution, and are sometimes redefined after the fact. The result is a persistent no-win situation that leaves people feeling set up to fail. Transparency issues extend to pay. Senior leadership has explicitly refused, in a company-wide meeting, to share salary bands, arguing that transparency would be “unfair” because multiple people hold the same roles. I'll let you guess what that means...