TLGG 

Agency

Unternehmenskultur

The handling of criticism created an environment in which raising concerns felt risky, as issues could be redirected towards the employee rather than clarified.

The tone towards departing colleagues could also be disrespectful. In one instance, a colleague’s choice of a new more conservative employer was openly mocked after she had resigned.

When I raised the expectation to work during sickness with HR, including the written statement “I expect you to work despite sickness,” I was told that employees should not work while sick, “for example, if you had been hit by a car.” In the context of a recent hospital admission, this showed little sensitivity towards mental illness.

Although I had already communicated openly about the seriousness of my condition, I was told that I should have been more transparent. I also reported that my mental health and medication had been discussed in written feedback, but received no substantive response even after several months.

Different standards were applied when concerns were reviewed. Unsubstantiated information about an employee could enter formal feedback, while my account was characterized as an allegation and management conduct was defended even after I provided screenshots.

Work was expected while I was seriously ill and receiving inpatient treatment. I was also asked to process emails before returning. There was no structured return-to-work process following the hospital stay. Illness was instead treated as something that should have been communicated and planned around staffing requirements.

Management was aware that I was seriously unwell and receiving inpatient hospital treatment. During this period, I received a written message stating that work was expected despite sickness and was asked to process emails before returning.

My mental health and medication were subsequently discussed in written performance feedback. The situation was relativized through statements such as “We all have problems in our daily lives” and that I was “not the only person with mental health issues.” The feedback also explicitly stated that I should have planned my illness better.

Following my return, I was told that a colleague had suffered because of my absence, and I was held responsible for capacity problems caused by insufficient contingency planning while I was in hospital.

When I later raised this, the responses were: “I am very sorry if you perceived it differently” and “I always supported you.” Neither addressed the issue; responsibility was again redirected towards my perception or unrelated past support.

Leadership Accountability: Management publicly advocates for micromanagement, a philosophy clearly reflected internally. While junior staff face formal written reprimands for minor formatting errors (e.g., a missing comma), significant reporting inaccuracies by leadership are overlooked without subsequent audits.

Mental Health vs. Public Relations: The company’s public communications reduce complex clinical mental health conditions to temporary pitch stress, suggesting superficial remedies. Internally, this manifests as equating medical diagnoses with "everyday challenges" or lifestyle habits, which lacks necessary medical objectivity.

Procedural Consistency: HR response times and outcomes vary significantly depending on the processor, indicating a lack of standardized service level agreements (SLAs).

Conflict Resolution: Raising structural concerns often yields defensive posturing rather than constructive dialogue. For instance, a supervisor’s written apology regarding the aforementioned hospital incident was followed by an official HR statement finding no procedural fault.

Strategic Navigation: When addressing critical issues internally, a methodical approach is advisable. Employees should maintain private, timestamped logs, send written summaries after verbal feedback, secure sworn affidavits (eidesstattliche Versicherung) where necessary, and ensure a witness is present during critical conversations before presenting a complete case.