Vantaggi
Having been with a different employer in the same sector for a number of years, I now feel that I am in a position to write an objective review of my time at GSK. As different teams at the same company can have very different dynamics and styles of management, these experiences may or may not be applicable to other teams at GSK - I write only based on my own experiences. Pros: 1) Logical processes and organisational structures. I disgaree with some of the other reviews that claim that GSK has layers of unnecessary processes. This is a highly regulated industry and robust processes are an absolute (and legal) must. Compared to every other company I have worked for, I found the processes at GSK were highly logical, full of common sense, devoid of unnecessary complexity and only involved the people that actually needed to be involved. I found the organisational structures to be similarly logical and, unlike some other companies, I could easily the purpose of every role. 2) Innovation and improvement was encouraged. I found my suggestions for improvements were always taken on board and I was encouraged to pursue my ideas. This is in contrast to other major companies I have worked for where a suggestion backed by a careful, logical argument of why it would be beneficial to the business will simply be ignored by management with no rational reason given. 3) High integrity. Although GSK did suffer some unfortunate incidents, I never found any lack of integrity amongst my colleagues and was certainly never put in a position where I had to compromise my values. 4) Genuine empowerment. I never experienced any micromanagement and was trusted to take decisions independently. Overall, GSK continues to exceed all of the other companies I have worked for in the above areas.
Svantaggi
Despite my many positive experiences at GSK, I did decide to leave the company (reluctantly, but I believe it was for the best). This was due to the reasons which I have summarised below: 1) Very limited opportunities to develop in line with one's own ambitions. In my current company, my manager makes a great deal of effort to give me work which I find interesting and which allows me to develop the skills I need to achieve my career ambitions. At GSK, I felt that I was simply allocated whatever tasks 'needed doing' at the time, with very little thought or concern given to whether it was relevant to my aspirations at the company. I also found that management were very reluctant to let people explore opportunities elsewhere, be it in other teams in the same department or elsewhere in GSK. I found there to be an overriding emphasis on team retention to the point where managers appeared visibly uncomfortable if the subject of pursuing an opportunity in another team was raised. 2) Some managers were reluctant communicators. Rather than managers taking the time to develop an open, honest and trusting relationship with their team members, I found that they frequently preferred to make assumptions about people and were often very reluctant to discuss changes or issues happening in the department. Decisions might be taken about your development 'in secret' without giving you the opportunity to voice your opinion. This is in contrast to my current manager who I enjoy a very open and trusting relationship with. 3) Very different expectations of team members. I found that the team relied heavily on a particular subset of individuals to complete the bulk of the work, especially when it came to non-routine and more complex tasks. Management appeared to have very different expectations of different team members, even those at the same grade. Some individuals would be given a limited workload of routine tasks and allowed to work at a slow pace, while others would be given crushing workloads and expected to deliver quickly. It appeared that excuses such as "I don't have the right skills for this" would result in the task simply being reallocated to someone else, often a person who already had a high workload. Some individuals expect to be 'spoon fed' everything and do not make the effort to proactively learn new skills. 4) Office environment and locations. The office I worked in did not feel like those of the prestiguous international company that GSK is. It was very dated with stained carpets, dingy lighting and a generally downbeat atmosphere. Additionally, the Brentford, Weybridge and Uxbridge offices in particular are situated in areas with a very high cost of living and there was not a consistent policy on working from home. This is biased against individuals from a poorer background who cannot afford the affluent lifestyles in these areas which some of the older or more middle-class employees can.