Ihr Unternehmen?
kununu Prüfprozess
1 Werkstudent:innen bei Lindenhofgruppe haben den Arbeitgeber im Durchschnitt mit 1,0 von 5 Punkten bewertet.
Der Arbeitgeber wurde in dieser Bewertung nicht weiterempfohlen.
Isolation and exclusion within teams.
No resources or tools allocated to research activities.
Leadership and supervision issues.
Abrupt termination without explanation.
Strong discrepancy between external image and internal reality.
Invest seriously in research and innovation instead of treating them as labels.
Allocate real budgets to projects and provide access to basic tools and software.
Take psychological safety and employee well-being seriously.
Ensure transparent communication and accountability, especially in critical situations.
Align internal practices with the values promoted externally.
The work atmosphere was extremely tense and psychologically harmful. Constant pressure, fear of speaking openly and emotional exhaustion were part of daily work. Signs of distress were ignored and there was no sense of psychological safety. Team meetings and breaks were consistently conducted in German, despite all team members being fluent in English, which further limited inclusion, participation and effective collaboration.
The organization maintains a strong external image. However, there is a clear and troubling gap between public communication and internal reality.
The absence of basic IT support and access to essential tools forced me to work extensively on my personal computer outside working hours, accumulating several hundred hours of unpaid effort. This severely impacted my work-life balance, while chronic overload and burnout risks were treated as normal.
Despite research and innovation being promoted externally, there was no concrete investment in projects, infrastructure or development. Career growth depended more on internal dynamics than on competence or performance.
Compensation and benefits did not reflect the level of responsibility, pressure and expectations. Comparable organizations offer more competitive conditions and advantages.
Social responsibility is emphasized externally, but internal practices toward employees did not always reflect these values.
Team spirit was absent. While a few colleagues showed goodwill, the overall culture discouraged collaboration, openness and trust. I experienced strong isolation in my role. Leadership at the research department level was ineffective in addressing or resolving tense situations. Conflict management relied mainly on symbolic actions, such as informal coffee breaks, rather than concrete measures to restore trust, structure and stability within the team.
Colleagues outside the research department generally interacted appropriately.
Leadership behavior was a major issue. Support, accountability and constructive feedback were largely absent. Difficult situations were minimized or ignored rather than actively addressed. Ideas, proposals and project contributions were repeatedly shared but not meaningfully considered or followed up.
My contract was ended abruptly without clear or transparent explanation.
Working conditions contributed to long-term psychological strain. There were no effective structures in place to protect employees from chronic stress or isolation. Work was expected to be carried out with no support :
No resources were allocated to research activities, and access to essential tools and software was not provided, including freely available and open-source solutions commonly used in research environments. This severely limited the ability to work effectively and responsibly.
Communication was poor and non-transparent. Information was often missing, delayed or contradictory, creating confusion, insecurity and additional stress. The supervision provided did not include sufficient subject-matter expertise related to the project, which led to inefficient guidance and a significant loss of time for my academic work.
Equality and inclusion are communicated externally, but in daily practice they were not consistently experienced. For example, all team meetings were conducted in the local language despite all participants being fluent in English, with no visible effort made to ensure inclusion or equal participation.
The tasks were largely repetitive and of limited added value due to rigid and outdated methodological approaches imposed on the projects, which significantly reduced efficiency and innovation.
At the same time, the project itself had strong potential and clear scientific relevance. However, the absence of expertise of my supervisor, the complicated working environment and the lack of institutional support made it impossible to conduct sustainable, meaningful and impactful work.
Throughout my time there, I fully met my responsibilities and invested a substantial personal and professional commitment, including sacrificing external opportunities and funding, developing several fully functional software tools, securing partnerships, and preparing all required study protocols independently.
Despite these efforts and contributions, my contract was terminated without any reason stated in the termination letter.