Avantages
1. Most people are at Samagra for a real desire to change country for good. 2. Recruitment process is rigorous, fair and well executed. 3. Growing firm both in terms of visibility and network. 4. Good support system within the team members. Few managers with experience provide good guidance and support on job while others are fairly inexperienced and does not add much value to either work or professional growth. 5. Some good initiatives by company (technology focus, external speakers, LinkedIn update and central Uber/Ola for easy cab booking). 6. Company is very good in managing stakeholders- key success reason for the company’s recent growth.
Inconvénients
1. Limited understanding of real governance issues and more focus is on agreeing to Govt officer or funders. No prior experience of managing projects or understanding of on-ground situations. In most engagements, there is too much focus on communication. Many a times, teams have not worked on the successful initiative of Haryana govt however those successes are claimed to be Samagra’s work internally and externally 2. Unnecessary focus on improvement in metric without knowing the quality of data or on-ground change. This has resulted in many people leaving the firm in the past or currently unhappy. Team’s focus also shifts to updating numbers because they know program owner and manager only care about that. This is largely done for funders or creating a perception of impact with Govt officer 3. Favouritism and politics is norm. By now everyone has realised that the only way to grow is to follow CEO’s instruction or keeps him happy. Most of the times these issues are discussed in small groups and now almost everyone has stopped saying anything in fear of not looked at as team player or not aligned with company’s way of working. The company runs like a small owner driven shop than a professional set up based on merit and outcomes. Promotion, policy and other incentives are designed for select few based on who has followed CEO’s instruction and not based on merit. 4. Many central initiatives have failed (website changes, non learning townhall, professional development processes, orientation, exit interviews, and many more) due to bad quality design and only focused on checklists and no involvement/feedback by anyone but driven top-down. 5. Someone before me has also written this here. I also agree that the prime focus of company is making more money and not impact, as it claims every time internally and externally. Major examples of this are- understaffed teams but still prime objective seems to be getting new projects despite saying otherwise internally, CEOs time on existing projects is limited, more time spent on public outreach, not able to manage any relationship with partner organization well.