The cons are only applicable to my role:
- Management to the team is terrible, which utterly kills the team morale. I was in the company for 9 months, in those 9 months, I'm the 4th person to leave the team
- way too rigid and traditional, still working on desktop PC's, not a very fluid and agile environment, work is passed down from the top, not a very employee engaging process
- Management likes being in control and holding all the power, doesn't like being proved wrong. Bullying culture like mentioned below (including asking if I really wanted to be at work, simply because my shirt wasn't ironed well... the company has a casual dress policy)
- only management goes to all the meetings and makes all the decisions. Analysts are just about in front of the computer screen for the entire work day. In risk, the culture was basically 'do as you are told'. Which is contradictory to one of the company's key values of 'free thinking'.
- Over the top attention to formatting reports. A report often takes way longer than it should because people can't agree to indent or not, or left/middle align. All reports have to be word documents, in a world of data visualisation, any other form of presentation isn't allowed. The written report is proof checked by 2 managers before being published. If you turn off 'Track Changes', you can have some fun watching 2 managers change each other's sentences, both thinking you wrote it. Even after working in consulting, reports prepared for external clients aren't rigid like Liberty's reports.
- not much room for growth, the next level in my team after analyst is general manager, you can move sideways into another team and try something else at best
- Not a rewarding culture, work is boring and not very engaging, too much manual admin work, a more 'if it works, don't fix it' environment rather than 'continuous improvement' environment
