Vantaggi
I'll like to say I've chosen to stay completely anonymous. My employment details are not accurate to prevent exposing myself. I will refrain from speaking about wages here as these can/have change overtime. 1. Co-founders are sincere and you can feel it during the interview. They have a strong, and deep commitment to Singapore's mental health circle. The company is founded by this cause-driven principle and that is also embedded deeply within the philosophy in the organisation. 2. To some extent, they are materially generous, despite the tight budget. You would sometimes receive food, dinner, lunches at the companies' expenses. Note: company is very small so you shouldn't expect a lot but this company does its best in this area. 3. There is a level of standard that is established amongst all the employees. This level of standard, sets the tone for how the company wants itself to be. Certain level of work ethics and deliverables is expected, and timeline are tight for a good reason. These are reasonable explained earlier before you start to work. There are some downsides to this, which I will explain under 4. As a few reviewers have mentioned, founders would assign similar standard of work to both interns and full-timers, to flatter any sort of workplace hierarchy or disparity, but also to provide some sense of shared cohesive and collective vision across all the employees. This encourage learning-on-the-job, and that all contributions are recognised, regardless of pay grade. Cons.
Svantaggi
Firstly, the facade of a well-running, well-functioning organisation slowly crumbles away when you start working with them and then seeing how much mismanagement, disorganisation, unprofessionalism and lastly, but most importantly, their better-than-thou attitudes towards younger employees. This organisation that has so much potential to succeed as a social-enterprise but unfortunately, many of the problems can attributed the (un)professionalism of the two founder. There is so much to write but I'll try to keep this short. The co-founders themselves have driven many dedicated former employees away under the guise of "they are not growing anymore". This excuses was used.... too many times to explain why people left, either on their own or from dismissal by the founders. I can, with full transparency, tell you that the professionalism is the sole reason why organisation could never retain employees. The use of "case studies" (a.k.a from previous incident occur at the workplace) as introductory deck for new employees, the overt biases and sudden emotional outburst, the mandatory text messages that must be replied in 15 minutes, the use company time to talk about personal matters outside of work, the unwillingness to change despite constructive feedbacks, "scoldings" of employee without proper guidance... and the list keeps growing. The onus is on employers to iron out these issues. It is reasonable to accept that no one is perfect and many of the above problems will take time to resolve. It is simply unusual for a company to have turnover rate this high within a short period of time. It is probably wise to ourselves if this is an employee-only problem or problem(s) with the organisation and its founders. If your ex-employees are flourishing in other places, after their stint here, should it make you wonder where exactly the problems is? Sometimes there are unreasonable tight timelines for work to be delivered. This is not "nature of the job" problem but rather very poor planning and very poor communication between the founders and the employees, but the founder(s) will often justify this. This will eventually come at the expenses of the mental health of the employees.