While call monitoring matches the job description, that is where the resemblance ends. There is no opportunity to meaningfully analyse data or provide feedback that is actually acted upon, making the QC function feel performative rather than purposeful. There is also no clear progression path within this role, which becomes evident very quickly.
Roles can be expanded at short notice with duties that have no relation to QC whatsoever. In my experience, scheduling and merchant coordination were added to the entire QC department without consultation, starting as optional before quickly becoming mandatory with no formal process or agreement. When concerns were raised about this, they were not received constructively and probation can be failed simply for voicing legitimate concerns, despite no performance or behavioural issues ever being present.
The probation process lacks transparency entirely. No formal performance meetings were held, no written feedback was provided, and no concerns were raised at any point before the failure was announced without warning or specific examples.
Management style within the department is reactive and emotionally driven rather than structured or consistent, which points to a lack of experience in people management. This became particularly evident when probation was failed without any documented reason, formal feedback, or due process.
HR felt partial toward management rather than acting as a neutral resource for employees, making it difficult to raise concerns with any confidence they would be fairly considered.
It is also worth noting that since my departure, new vacancies now include scheduling duties that were never part of the original job description, worth checking carefully before you apply.
