The future is automated. The redundancies are human.
Pros
The commitment to AI is genuinely impressive. Few organisations have managed to move so quickly from 'our people are our greatest asset' to 'have we tried replacing them with software?' The company talks extensively about values, culture and supporting staff. Unfortunately, these discussions often seem to coincide with decisions that suggest employees are best appreciated from a distance, preferably after they've been made redundant. Communication throughout periods of change was particularly memorable. There was always a new presentation, a new strategy, a new vision, and somehow fewer and fewer people around to deliver it. Working at Scope is a great opportunity to witness how quickly years of experience can be reclassified as an avoidable expense. You no longer need to concern yourself with climbing the career ladder. It's already been replaced with a trapdoor. You'll also never have to worry about your level of job security, because it's 0 from the get-go. Staff engagement surveys provide an exciting opportunity to watch feedback disappear into the same void as headcount. It's like magic. Scope has done a wonderful job at successfully reducing employee turnover, even if it is by removing the employees. You'll develop valuable new skills, like spotting redundancy announcements hidden inside phrases like 'exciting transformation journey' and 'the story of change'. Other brave uses of the English language include: Calling redundancies 'exciting opportunities' and referring to widespread uncertainty as 'clarity'. Describing concerns about job security as resistance to change is a particularly imaginative rebranding exercise. And rebranding panic as excitement has been one of management's most consistent achievements. Describing morale as 'resilient' after several rounds of redundancies is an ambitious interpretation of the available evidence. Calling employees your greatest asset while actively reducing their number is a fascinating application of asset management principles. Describing restructure after restructure as 'strategic progress' demonstrates a refreshing commitment to creative writing. And doing it multiple times a year reflects a strong appreciation for sequels. The mission is inspiring, even if it is a pipe dream under the current leadership. If optimism could be converted into operational capacity, the organisation would be unstoppable.
Cons
The organisational values appear to be reviewed more often than they're followed. The internal AI revolution gets so much airtime it should probably have its own podcast. There's probably a Copilot agent producing the first episode as I type. The org chart has been through so many changes in recent years that it would be better displayed as a constantly updating live-stream instead of a fixed document. Every strategic update feels like the plot twist in a dystopian sci-fi novel. Leadership's favourite use of AI appears to be generating new ways to explain why there are fewer staff. To the surprise of no-one, 'doing more with less' is becoming 'doing everything with nothing'. Staff are encouraged to embrace change. Change is not encouraged to embrace staff. The free shuttle bus to the London office doesn't have a stop at the local Jobcentre Plus.
