Elsevier reviews

Complacency. Over 100 years of successful operation in a monopoly position gives a sticky perception that nothing (bad) is ever going to happen, so the lack of urgency is profound. "Industrial organization era" type of business practices. Complacency creates a very fertile soil for outdated and discriminative business (aka "leadership") practices brought in and cultivated by mediocre management, also senior. The safety zone is ±inflation% growth within your product/BU upon achieving which (and it is not too difficult, given the monopolistic position) gives people a wrong incentive to install ever-more-bureaucratic processes and do everything possible just to keep status quo. As a result, the organization abounds with inefficient and bureaucratic yet very proud departmental silos that are much less efficient to work with than event contracting a party from the open market. Top-down management and decision-making mentality. It is not unusual to hear about "cascading" of decisions and KPOs. Seriously. Someone would proudly tell you that some "cascading" is required and it's your task to do that without looking at the content. Virtually no one would ever challenge that. It is impossible and considered an entirely wrong move to challenge senior management's decisions, even not openly. These managers keep hiring similar, "reliable" ones. "Strategy" is still a department. I'm not joking. Have some input for a product or technology team or want to bring in a fresh perspective? Don't bother: the "Strategy department" has everything figured out for you in a 3/5-year plan. Send your ideas to the "suggestions box". You are penalized for being innovative. Trying to be innovative and shaking the grounds of the above is a Sisyphean attempt. The more you do it, the more you feel the force of the profound status quo. And once you confront the mediocre environment, it uses its ample arsenal of corporate tools to shut you up. You have to play the game of mediocrity. Technology is isolated from Business (as an example of functional silos isolation). Business honestly thinks that Technology is something you purchase at necessary quantities as water or electricity and looks down on it. Of course: what is our competitive advantage -- technology? Nah, it is our unique strategy decks that talk about how to further exploit content monopolies. Technology, on the other hand, thinks that Business could not care less and therefore blows up budgets and downplays delivery standards. Tech management is so tired of maintaining the status quo they forget to actually work with technology. It's not uncommon to hear a talk about AI from a technology leader and experience a strong desire to cover your face because of shame and embarrassment. Tech is dominated (at least with regards to decision-making) by a bunch of US (and sometimes UK) based managers that share no company values whatsoever.

What was so incredibly disappointing to me was that I was thrilled to get a job with this company. I left a company I loved bc I anticipated growing, and learning, and sharpening my skills. I knew some of my colleagues were sharp, so I was excited to learn so much working here. However, what I didn't anticipate was the reality. The place is a train wreck. It was a nightmare from the first week. On boarding was done through about 50 different links to various company sites, to be done on my own, constant mixed messages and signals from the start, and most employees are so busy covering themselves bc of the accusatory environment that that "team" thing? Doesn't exist. So, I have a list of 10 reasons not to work there, but it could be much, much longer. 1. Leadership is the company's biggest disrupter. Too many chiefs, personal agendas and managing up, instead of leading employees. It is destroying them from the inside. 2. HR is in no support for the employees 3. Very unhealthy environment. Accusatory, and full of endless stress and "never good enough" mentality of leaders. 4. Policies are not clear and leadership at several levels approve things, but the only people held accountable for "breaking policy" are the people on the bottom. Very, very unclear when to follow leadership and when not to??... 5. Benefits are not good for a company of its size. Expensive benefits and pay raises are terrible. 6. Bottom line driven over employee satisfaction and retention 7. Leadership could care less about employees. No loyalty to even top performers, only loyalty is to the yearly return promised to investors. Whatever it takes leadership. 8. HR is afraid to fire certain workers who have been documented by multiple managers as not honest, and not working, yet will fire others without any warning. 9. Employee expectations and reviews are never done on time. I got my expectations at the end of the year right before I had my annual review, little tough to achieve in a couple of weeks. No one can hold leadership accountable' yet employees are held tight to what's expected of them, even if it wasn't communicated in a timeframe manageable to be delivered. 10. VERY unhealthy environment. Oh wait, did I say this already? It bears repeating because it is, so much so that people leave, just quit without even having another job to go to. There are so many incredibly smart, hard-working, talented, yet unhappy, miserable employees. I cannot believe for a company that has such amazing content and R& D behind it, and manages to get such high quality talent, and throws out so many employee satisfaction surveys, that NO ONE in leadership is actually hearing what their people are telling them. But, then again, leadership is this company's greatest disrupter. That's what happens when everyone manages up.