- GLG has a lot of potential in terms of people, insights and resources but it is extremely poorly managed at any level: globally, locally and on a team level (a part few exceptions).
- Directors/Management (some of them coming from top strategy consulting firms) are not able to design proper and fair targets/metrics based on regional differences and account complexities.
- In almost 3 years some colleagues/peers generated more targeted ideas and strategic plans than what we have seen from the top management. And such feedback was never acted upon, and dismissed because of “lack of tenure”.
- Some Directors are completely disconnected from the reality of the business and do not spend enough time on the floor to really understand how the business works.
- Local leaders do not have the guts/power to fight any wrong decision coming from the US and they are unable to develop a long-term European strategy based on specific market needs.
- Not to mention that some leaders/managers only worked at GLG for their entire life and do not really know how the rest of the world works.
-->Overall GLG has an identity problem that is reflected on everything: roles, targets, culture and strategy.
GLG is neither a tech company, nor a consulting firm or an investment group.
GLG is a knowledge intermediary or middleman. As all intermediaries, GLG cannot survive without keeping both parties happy. GLG completely depends on both clients and experts.
Cambridge Dictionary defines intermediary as ‘someone who acts to arrange an agreement between people who are unwilling or unable to communicate directly’. Being able to make the connection work is the value that an intermediary should add.
The question is now: How can you streamline and standardize this action? The intermediation is a dynamic process that requires constant flexibility and personal savoir-faire.
Well, GLG is convinced they can do that and they are the only ones who are able to.
