GLG reviews

GLG's leadership is male and white. There are only a handful of minorities that work there and choose to stay more than a year. There are no minorities in senior leadership in the US. Many women can be found in junior roles, but only a tiny fraction make it to the executive level. The work is repetitive and doesn't translate into hard skills. As other reviewers noted, you can learn how to do this job in 6 months and get good at it by a year. If you stay more than 2 years you make yourself less employable by the minute. The focus on hard metrics is too extreme and makes it feel like a call center. GLG started emphasizing L & D to address some of the negative feedback about lack of professional development, but all I saw was a chance to sit through an advanced Excel lecture. They have an employee survey every year that is supposed to be anonymous but really isn't. To anyone currently at GLG, be very careful about how you respond as your manager (and above) can slice the data real thin to see who said what.

The message from executive management is that GLG strives to be the best place in the world to work for. That is either a blatant lie designed to 'sell' the place to employees or is a unbelievable lack of self-awareness. General sense that employees are under-paid, micro-managed and over-worked (for the pay). The job is marketed as an opportunity to work in 'research' for financial services clients. The job entails doing repetitive, monotonous and administrative tasks under high pressure to tight deadlines. This work is then audited anonymously by management. In my experience office morale is low and employees feel undervalued. As competitive pressures force GLG to become speedier (and less thoughtful) weight is put on phone calls, efficient project management and standardised email communication. There is less and less weight/value put on 'content' or being a thought partner to a client. The number of calls on a project counts for far more in performance metrics than thoughtful, in-depth knowledge of the client's research topic. No client would ever hire their research professional to actually be in their investment team- they view us as having access to a database of experts who we keyword search. Not far off. Primary research in the form of conversation with experts is actually a very valuable asset to clients- but they do not view the GLG team as having the same intelligence, or 'thought-partner' type skills as they do the sell-side. Not the stepping stone to a role in finance it claims to be. The 'glorified call centre' type posts left by other employees/former employees is hard to defend. Especially so with new performance metrics and strategy set by exec management.