Ten years of thought leadership, achievement, and tech innovation, and I'm still a manager.
Pros
Big company, big name, looks great on your CV. Great salaries, benefits, and bonuses, especially at the corporate level. Before 2007, I had a great experience at Pearson. My bosses were great. They gave me autonomy because they trusted in their own decision to hire me and therefore didn't feel the need to micromanage me. I didn't disappoint them. I innovated my brains out for them. And, I was well rewarded for it. Not just rewards of "a good bonus", but with credit given where credit was due, a heartfelt thanks and appreciation for a job well done. It was great, and I felt motivated to do more and do better!
Cons
Company reputation is worsening, and there are no significant advancement opportunities for technical people. Advancement is only for "talkers" not "doers". There actually is a technical management pathway for career advancement at Pearson. It started in 2007. It's documented, even. But, HR pretends it doesn't exist when you ask about it. Most of upper management has no clue at all about available technical advancement pathways, so you won't either. If you have a complaint about upper management, as legitimate as it may be, HR will not move heaven and earth to resolve it. They'll drag their feet tremendously. If you're in an HR-mediated interview with your boss over a conflict, HR will sit silently and watch your boss walk all over you and then recommend professional development training. For you. Not for your boss. Because you are the underling, so obviously it's you that has the problem. Also, some upper management types like to steal your ideas and pretend they came up with them, rather than give you the reins and let you drive the bandwagon. Not good for career development. In 2007, the company restructured itself. People were left in the dark about what was going to happen as the Harvard-type consultants and the shiny new MBA grads swept in and had closed-door meetings with the top brass about what to do next. As a result, a lot of bad decisions were made and resources were inefficiently allocated. The culture of open-door management and respect went out the window at that point and people were shuffled around in the organizations and treated like numbers. It was like one big game of corporate Sudoku, where the math was right, but, stepping back, the whole thing looked just random and scattered.
