Veneer of stability covers deep frustrations
Pros
Work-life balance is generally great and the average employee can expect to work 40-50 hours per week. It is very rare that anyone would exceed this. I've seen more and more people start to stay later in the day over time due to increased workload and responsibilities, especially after people have left the organization. The company has been hesitant to adequately back-fill vacant positions after oil prices collapsed. Deadlines are often pushed back or ignored by managers. Benefits and starting vacation time are solid. Every employee is entitled to five weeks starting vacation plus three "floater" days. Health, dental, and vision benefits are great, but not as rare in the marketplace as they once were. The company often uses these benefits as a crutch for attracting and retaining talent. Great camaraderie and friendships between analysts at the lower levels. The average age of employees is relatively low and many people are up for a round of drinks at the pub. Most people are generally friendly and easy to work with, with very few exceptions. That being said, there are some rude individuals who are tolerated within the organisation because managers either view their behaviour as benign.
Cons
While there is a veneer of stability and satisfaction, there is a deep-rooted level of frustration that runs throughout the organization. Several people are feeling under-resourced, under-appreciated, and disheartened about the future growth and direction of the company. Technology improvements have moved at a snail's pace and implementation of new products is often delayed and sub-optimal in terms of quality. It leaves people feeling angry and lost, but they are afraid to speak out. I can't remember the last time I worked through a full day without having a problem with network connectivity, problems with software, errors with the publication software, or other issues related to technology. It doesn't seem like upper management is aware of the true extent of this problem and several people are deciding to leave the organisation rather than labour on with their current frustrations. A pervasive go-along to get-along attitude exists at all levels within the organisation. Several people that I would describe as "devil's advocates" have been consistently marginalised and treated as though they are detrimental to the organisation. To the contrary, my private conversations with them have shown that they care deeply about the company and the quality of its products. Sadly, management seems to reward those people who simply smile and tow the company line, regardless of the situation. This has a serious, negative effect on continuous process improvements, voicing constructive criticisms, and trusting that your concerns and experience will be valued by management. Many people remain silent about their frustrations out of fear. It has been my experience and perception that the annual review process for promotion and bonuses is highly subjective and purposefully vague. Managers routinely give high-visibility projects to those employees that they favour while assigning mundane or meaningless work to those they don't. This creates a continuous cycle of failure for those who aren't able to showcase their strengths or improve their skills. Managers will then say something to the effect of "you haven't demonstrated this skill" while they know full well that they have denied you the opportunity in the first place. Objective measurements are routinely ignored and feedback from employees has almost no bearing during the review process. Several individuals have privately expressed their distrust in their direct manager and in middle management to act as their advocate or to help advance their career. There can be a perception that some line and middle managers will use analysts and associated to enhance their own careers while not sharing the wealth. It is often the case that names of managers will appear on various reports, presentations, or other products even though they had little or no input into that project. Give credit where credit is due, at the analyst level where the ground work is done. While there are several line and middle managers, there are very few leaders. Several teams have functioned perfectly fine when their line managers were away on holiday or on extended leave. I personally have not felt inspired or mentored by any of my direct managers while at the organisation. The further up the chain in management some is, the less they seem to know about what is going on at the bottom levels in terms of workload or processes. They have an unrealistic view of what and how much can get done since they have lost touch with the day-to-day work. While the organisation boasts a relatively flat management hierarchy, in practice all decisions are pushed through from the top levels without giving very much consideration to how it will impact the day-to-day processes of analysts. Research analysts are more and more often required to perform the roll of researcher, salesperson, and marketer without being compensated or supported accordingly. An unspoken animosity exists between research teams and sales and marketing, each blaming the other for their own failures. There needs to be a serious re-alignment of goals between these two teams to generate some good will. Sales and marketing needs better training on products and research methodologies in order to best serve current or potential clients. They also need to understand the realistic limitations of our research products and stop over promising things beyond our current capability to clients.