Orion Innovation reviews

I worked through them on several projects, and the experience became negative when the company no longer had suitable projects to offer. As long as I was placed with a client and generating margin, things seemed acceptable. When pipeline issues appeared and I ended up between projects, the real culture became much more visible. Instead of real support, transparency, and a mature repositioning strategy, I felt constant pressure on employees who were on the bench. Although the company operated mostly remotely, those without an external project were treated differently and required to work from the office on internal projects, in a way that did not convey real respect or care for people. Another negative aspect was the lack of respect for professional specialization. I was a software engineer, with a clear technical profile, but I was sent to interviews that were unsuitable for my experience and tech stack. From my perspective, the goal seemed to be more about creating the appearance that opportunities had been offered to me, rather than finding a genuine professional fit. I felt that the employee was treated more like a billable resource than a professional. As long as you were generating margin, you were useful. When the company no longer had suitable projects, support disappeared, and the pressure was shifted onto the employee. The most serious red flag was related to professional mobility. While I was still employed, I was contacted by recruiters about external opportunities. The conversations stopped immediately after I mentioned my employer, and I was told that the processes could not continue and that no offers could be made because of the company I was working for. I was not part of any discussions that may have taken place between companies, but the concrete effect was clear: the recruitment processes stopped after I mentioned my employer. For me, this is not only an ethical issue, but also a serious legal red flag. If such situations are based on informal agreements between companies not to recruit or hire each other’s employees, they may fall into the area of anti-competitive 'no-poach' practices, which can limit competition in the labor market and restrict employees’ freedom to access external opportunities. The consequences are serious: employees can lose opportunities, better salaries, and professional growth without even knowing it, while the labor market can be distorted in favor of companies that informally control access to talent. Relationships between companies should not matter more than competence, performance, and the employee’s freedom of choice. For senior professionals, this is an important warning sign: it is not only about the company’s internal culture, but also about how the company’s external relationships can influence your freedom of movement in the labor market. I do not recommend this company to senior professionals who are looking for stability, respect, transparency, fair recognition, real professional mobility, and a mature environment.

Managers lack effective team leadership skills, leading to poor morale and stagnation. Projects are uninspiring, with little room for creativity or growth, yet changing projects is met with resistance, even when the team is unhappy. Employee retention is low, and it's easier to find a new job than to improve the current one. Compensation is stagnant, even for the hardest-working team members, making it difficult to reach a fair salary like €2000 or more. The working environment is very toxic, racist and unpleasant.