Wood Mackenzie reviews

3.3

57% would recommend to a friend

(878 total reviews)
avatar

Jason Liu

49% approve of CEO

47% positive business outlook

Wood Mackenzie has an employee rating of 3.3 out of 5 stars, based on 878 company reviews on Glassdoor which indicates that most employees have a good working experience there. The Wood Mackenzie employee rating is in line with the average (within 1 standard deviation) for employers within the Administración y consultoría industry (3.7 stars).

Reviews by job title

878 reviews
2.0
Nov 24, 2014
Recommend
CEO approval
Business Outlook

Pros

Good place to learn part of the sector, however the increasingly lack of a joined up view will hold careers back It used to be an extremely good company and there are still a lot of very good people

Cons

Too few staff Low morale Increasingly toxic work culture as people tried to hide from work and scarce resources are shared out on an increasingly political basis Increasingly silo-ized Totally inept staff tolerated and promoted because of the work they churn out, while good staff who actually bother to figure out their subject sidelined because they refuse to churn. Staff turnover, which has traditionally been below industry levels, is now at very high levels Lack of promotion for good staff Increasingly political managements - is rapidly heading towards a point of fiddling while Rome burns Increasingly serious holes in coverage

2.0
Nov 26, 2021
Recommend
CEO approval
Business Outlook

Pros

Good salary and benefits Good team members that have been drawn by the brand reputation of old

Cons

WoodMac and PowerAdvocate change leadership like they change their underpants - there is clearly some unhappy people at the top. Strategy is not clear so Executive team get sick of the lack of commitment to a direction and leave. Those that stay are stuck in their ways and are sitting on a pile of cash that they received when WoodMac was acquired and sold multiple times - ultimately ending up in the hands of Verisk - that has no idea what to do with it. Corporate HR are driving a constant headcount reduction agenda because the labour cost is too high. People are constantly watching their backs constantly scared of the witch-hunting HR organisation. Verisk parent company has no interest in pursuing a Consulting business as the revenue streams are volatile. They just want a boring subscription business which drives decisions around consulting resourcing and strategy. VPS are very territorial and do not work together. This limits the work that you get to do and the career opportunities available to junior employees. Consulting and Research don’t work together well and hence have conflicting analysis on many sectors. .

1.0
Nov 17, 2019

"Research & analysis"

Recommend
CEO approval
Business Outlook

Pros

-Nice people mostly, the odd ego apart -Investing in improved systems that look nice for customers but no one seems to know how it will affect work yet -Encourage internal career mobility but suspect that's mainly because they have to.

Cons

-Beware if you've experienced research and analysis elsewhere: this is industrialised data production. Data scraping from websites, data entry/cut and paste into standardised "models" (it's not modelling) for DCF valuation by systems (not you) and data "management" (herding it through legacy bolted together systems and conducting infinite data checks). You're a stand-in for a decent IT system. Some industry analysis possible but it's a minority of the time, squeezed between the attritional data stuff, and little actually going on to analyse by the team's own admission. The data churn doesn't give you the knowledge to do the stuff that looks more like analysis and you're not readily helped with getting it. Very disappointing. -Focus on box ticking (quantity and timing) and what looks good on managers' KPIs. -Introduced agile working methods relatively recently. Absolute waste of time and surprising given claimed culture aims: actually endangers it as it reinforces sense of general micro-management, lack of trust/empowerment and sweating the staff. Where I come from, it's a manger's job to know what work is going on in the team and trust staff to do it or say when they can't. -More chiefs than indians. Seems vastly bureaucratic. It seems people who don't leave eventually get promoted to some new "head of" job. -People mostly nice and there a long time - usually a good thing but perhaps creates a sense of survivorship bias, institutionalisation, complacency and need for fresh blood. Manifests itself in different ways. Strange assumption of knowledge everywhere: you should know what they know even after only months in the door. No holistic training of any note, just transactional. Thrown into the churn and then have work pulled apart afterwards, which is fundamentally backward. -Poor pay. Previous roles paid 55-80% more. I accepted it for the opportunity to get into oil and gas analysis, but it was nowhere near that and pay reflects the job's admin orientation. Also always trying to penny pinch. The only place I've had to pay for my welcome lunch. Small but sets the tone. Welcome indeed. -Poor systems. Being addressed to be fair but still large uncertainties re roles. You can see this company being far less labour intensive in future the way tech is going. It could be disrupted beyond all recognition before long and oil and gas faces its own challenges. -Lot of change going on which you'd hope is for the long term good but it feels frantic/chaotic. It's not clear they really know where this is going for careers. -Fair amount of staff turnover - surprise, surprise. Turnover leaves clear knowledge gaps in teams which may also be behind new-entrant training issues.

Viewing 43 - 45 of 878 Reviews

Glassdoor has 1,019 Wood Mackenzie reviews submitted anonymously by Wood Mackenzie employees. Read employee reviews and ratings on Glassdoor to decide if Wood Mackenzie is right for you.