Elanco Leadership - Senior Associate Elanco Employee Review

3.0
14 Nov 2017
Recommend
CEO approval
Business outlook

Pros

Elanco has very talented people. The company has a strong emphasis on safety. Top managers communicate frequently with the organization.

Cons

The top management does not understand the concept of competitive advantage. Management hires McKinsey to do their thinking for them. Elanco buys plants and shuts them down to gain their customers and products, then they lose market share because they don't understand how to compete.

Explore other reviews about Elanco

5.0
14 May 2026
Recommend
CEO approval
Business outlook

Pros

Management listens to their emoloyees. Great benefits.

Cons

Old equipment. Lots of forced ot for hourly employees

avatar
Elanco Response
1w
We appreciate your positive feedback regarding management and benefits. At Elanco, we are dedicated to the wellbeing of our employees and are always looking for opportunities for improvement - we thank you for your feedback!
2.0
20 Feb 2026
Recommend
CEO approval
Business outlook

Pros

Plenty of great, passionate coworkers who work hard and collaborate. I had a lot of professional flexibility and my job was always interesting. Process teams on the manufacturing floor is a great system. Offsite resources, especially technical experts, are great.

Cons

Expect to be firefighting constantly and frequently fighting against an aging facility and outdated processes. No unified vision or clear prioritization from management. Misalignment between site leadership and upper/off-site management created sustained operational friction and stress for employees. Leadership turnover was frequent, contributing to ongoing instability. Because of all this, there was a super low morale and a feeling of widespread fatigue. Inconsistent communication and decision-making standards contributed to a low-trust culture, including regular informal discussion of colleagues and unprofessional and sometimes intimidating behavior in meetings. Performance feedback and perceived value were highly dependent on shifting leadership dynamics rather than consistent, objective criteria. Employees could move from being strongly supported to heavily criticized with little change in actual performance. Although a nine-box review process was supposedly used, individual outcomes were not transparently shared with employees. Onboarding and training for specialized roles were underdeveloped. Compensation was just fine for workload and scope of responsibility.

1
See reviews by: Helpful|Rating|Date|All