ConveGenius reviews

If you want to join this company, go ahead but do it only out of your personal interest and use it as a springboard to your next job because that is also how the company will treat you. All the sweetness, politeness, enthusiasm, purpose from senior leadership is very superficial and is just meant to overwork you until burnout and no one cares. Come for the AI, Stay for the Chaos: Initally, when I joined I thought I was joining a company that is striving to make impact in education space. They were making impact , a very positive one but only on their own pockets. After giving so much of dedication and effort to my work and the product, I am disappointed to say that it was just used by the company to further its own interests rather than the users' like they portray. It is sad to see the government's money going down the drain. Bottom Line: Ethics and PR often feel performative The real impact is unclear Product capabilities are overstated Procurement processes lack transparency Staff across the board are overburdened Leadership lacks necessary domain expertise HR is ineffective at handling grievances Oversight and micromanagement are rampant Expertise and impact is overstated internally There’s little accountability of any actions Older (Core team) Senior leaders may struggle to find equivalent roles elsewhere based on their current performance and experience except a few. The Company: Behind the PR Curtain: The Reality is Far From Promised The company is primarily sustained by the government connections of its founders. There is no strategic vision whatsoever. Anyone can approach them with funding, and they'll build and sell anything without proper evaluation. They even mention, somewhat proudly, that they sold masks and sanitizers during Covid just to keep things going. One would expect a better, longer-term vision. The organic user base is very limited. The usage numbers are heavily inflated, and most users are government-mandated rather than voluntary. HR mainly supports CXOs, often acting as extensions of senior leadership (as one senior leader is known to call team members “assistants” or similar terms). Most public relations or “impact” campaigns appear to be exaggerated or lack substance. The company received a "#1 in Conversational AI" title on Play Store, yet their chatbots lack actual AI functionality. The CXOs: Most CXOs were brought in through personal or informal networks and have limited industry experience. It almost feels like anyone from the inner circle can become a CXO. CPO: Demonstrates poor treatment of employees. Tends to hire individuals who are easily influenced, assigns them long hours to push forward poorly thought-out ideas, and often places blame on them when things go wrong. He literally sleeps till 1 PM in the afternoon and then expects employees to do late evening meetings. Shows little concern for employee well-being unless they display constant agreement with him. Calls his AVPs and VPs generals who have to basically do his work without questioning anything. Team members are often overworked and excluded if they express disagreement. No one in the core Product team appears to have formal product training. The CPO’s strategy is reactive and trend-based, drawing on ideas from platforms like YouTube and pushing them onto teams with little context. His contributions appear minimal to the company’s actual progress. CEO: Energetic and full of ideas, but lacks a cohesive strategy. Overall a decent person, though perhaps misaligned with the leadership around him. COO: Carries an air of superiority and claims to be transforming the Indian education system single-handedly. Holds personal grudges, often speaks in a condescending manner, and emphasizes hierarchy during government interactions. CTOs (Tech and AI): The tech CTO takes a more high-level approach and doesn’t engage much with day-to-day tasks. The AI CTO is more hands-on and genuinely contributes. HR Department: The HR function is largely administrative and primarily serves leadership interests. Employee issues receive little attention. One HR representative (male, shorter in stature, with a claimed IIM background) has demonstrated unprofessional behavior toward female colleagues. For example, I witnessed him make personal comments on fragrance and appearance, which were inappropriate and crossed workplace boundaries. The Employees: Tech: Team members, especially junior developers, work extremely long hours—often 12 hours a day, seven days a week—under intense pressure to meet impossible deadlines. Product: Faces constant changes in direction. Projects are frequently abandoned due to shifting leadership focus, which demotivates the team. Product Delivery : Team with high pressure and performance expectations. Expect 10-12 hours minimum per day, sometimes 7 days a week. Sales: Sells overly optimistic promises without fully understanding the product. Operations: Works tirelessly, often without adequate support. Travel accommodations remain poor—even for women—despite repeated feedback. Office internet issues are frequent. The one bright spot: the office assistant makes excellent tea (thank you!). Field Staff: Underpaid, undertrained, overworked, and subject to a very high-pressure environment. Mental strain and stress are common themes across teams. Appraisals: If you align closely with leadership, you’ll be rewarded. Taking your allotted leave may be counted against you. Quiet, diligent work isn’t valued unless you constantly promote your efforts. Expressing dissent or questioning leadership behavior often leads to exclusion. Asking for learning resources? Don’t expect a positive outcome. Outcomes: Those seen as compliant or close to leadership may receive 12–25% hikes and promotions. Others may receive 7% or less, often accompanied by difficult appraisal conversations. The Product (and its Gaps): Their chatbot systems don’t incorporate real AI, aside from some recently added external wrappers. The vast majority of the bots are simple scripted tools sold as advanced AI. Product decisions prioritize government optics over real user value. Metrics around user engagement and adoption are often inflated. Product vision is unclear and delivered through jargon-heavy narratives. There is no framework to track educational impact—it's simply not a priority. The government pays significantly more than the actual value of the basic technology offered. The same tools are sold to different states with minimal changes. There is a trend-chasing mentality: copying popular tools without thoughtful product or user experience design. Their first product (PAL) was basic and hard-coded, with no true personalization or adaptive tech—despite how it was marketed.