Wood Mackenzie reviews

3.3

56% would recommend to a friend

(876 total reviews)
avatar

Jason Liu

47% approve of CEO

48% positive business outlook

Wood Mackenzie has an employee rating of 3.3 out of 5 stars, based on 876 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

876 reviews
1.0
Jan 5, 2022
Recommend
CEO approval
Business Outlook

Pros

- pay is on time - free fruit in the office, but you can't use it for 2 years since we are still in lockdown - learning opportunities - dealing with negative people will make you stronger - you are on your own, so you will quickly learn the ropes - work/life balance is ok, rare overtimes, weekend/evening working only around deadlines

Cons

I would not recommend joining Woodmac to my friends or family. - the negative reviews from 3 years ago are still true - often changes in the vision of company direction - often changes in CEOs - management will throw you under the train to save themselves - evergrowing number of management and decreasing number of doers - bad decisions made by management are pushed onto you so they can blame somebody else (we couldn't deliver x because of person y) - inability to hire talent and lately too many talented people leaving (they currently hide it by saying that they are hiring diverse people rather than quality people) - technical debt that is not prioritized - too many leaders with their own vision and duplicated work streams (there is a high chance that work you do for 2 years will go to the bin just because other leaders won politics) - you don't set your personal OKRs, management push their OKRs onto you (so basically they will get their bonuses) - too much politics - pay rise in average is in the region of 0.5%, not mentioning the below the market rates - bonus in average is in the region of £500-£1000 per year for a good achiever - promotions are based on the political side you join (if your party is in power) - you will realize there is no culture or values after a few All Hands meetings - too much micromanagement from all the product owners, management, and scrum masters.

2.0
Sep 16, 2015
Recommend
CEO approval
Business Outlook

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.

2.0
Aug 4, 2020
Recommend
CEO approval
Business Outlook

Pros

Good research opportunities. Plenty of well informed colleagues, though its questionable if they will give you the time of day to help you learn. You are brought in to do a job, train yourself. A good place to spend a few years in your career if you just want to learn and aren't too fussed about the money Office has (or had ) a quite relaxed atmosphere with casual-ish attire and beers in the office vibes. You won't regret working here, for a short period anyway.

Cons

Woodmac is structural messy. Good research work requires either very technical people or lots of low paid minions but Woodmac seems to have ended up with lots of middle managers who fulfill neither role. Therefore Woodmac is stuffed with people who have little to do except bombard each other with emails, and far too few people who are asked to do most of the groundwork. The managers, keen to show how much their team is doing, end up being quite an angry and aggressive bunch overall, as they pressurise their minions into doing lots of work, for not a lot of money. I never really witnessed workplace bullying until I started at Woodmac. Some of the experienced cohort genuinely still believe in the "rule by fear" approach to management, as if they were looking after primary school kids. What happens after you spend a couple of years of hard graft working in said conditions? Well you get a pat on the back and virtually no pay rise (2% maybe). The company has outrageous margins on its employees but is keen to ever decrease its costs. The company sees it as more important to keep its cost base low rather than keep good people. If you want a pay rise, sorry, you should have joined before 2010 when you could have been part of the gang. The revolving door of people leaving isn't an issue, it's a tactic. The reason the company is stuffed with middle managers now is that it made the "mistake" of giving decent pay to people in the past and they all stayed (imagine!). The upper management is a bit of mystery - as if there is a sudden disconnect in the org chart beyond which you have no idea who they are or what they do. Some are totally invisible. A certain someone read in a book that you should shake people's hands at a town hall and thinks that qualifies as enough to be seen as friendly and parochial. The upper management need to be far more visible and engaged with the research. They seem to live in a world of incessant emailing on inane decisions like pointlessly restructuring the business every 6 months. The constant chopping and changing of people at senior level indicates something isn't right in there or the hiring practices are all off. If you pay peanuts, you get monkeys. And Woodmac is happy to have monkeys, preferably data monkeys who can repetitively just update a few spreadsheets every week to feed into the new Lens product, which is quite clear will be used as a tool to lower the needed volume and quality of employees (and lower wages as a result hurrah!). The new "sprint" terminology used on a weekly basis is a psychological catastrophe, which could only be dreamed up by sociopaths. Employees spend every day being harassed as to what they have done yesterday from said cohort of fear-ruling managers. It's not pleasant long-term.

Viewing 10 - 12 of 876 Reviews

Glassdoor has 1,016 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.