Most Admired Pharmaceutical Company, 2012.
Pros
Competitive salary and benefits (gym, subsidized Starbucks, sufficient parking, gourmet food choices), decent technology and support. Progressive IT - imperfect but better than any other pharma. Everyone who gets a work phone gets an iPhone (if that's your thing). Theoretical work/life flexibility - many people work remotely routinely. Decent pipeline. Campuses are mostly impeccable art forms. Mission statement is plausible and realistic. VERY open to "diversity". Apparently building a child care center in East Hanover (evidence of commitment to working parents). Talent pool is average, i.e. MOST employees are competent and contractors are VERY qualified if not over qualified. C-suite is respectable and 80% transparent. Andre the US head is a really approachable executive - I think he has done a great job in a challenging time.
Cons
Just the usual: dearth of good management with the intermittent psychopath and marginally incompetent co-worker in the mix. Surplus of McKinsey mouth pieces with PhDs creating "value" and "strategy", e.g. fancy content-free powerpoints without basis in reality. Abundance of scientists disconnected from reality. Very little effort to embrace the obvious solution of coordinating research, development and marketing. Fiefdoms still exist. Cannabalistic performance management system through archaic, forced ranking. European colleagues have 8-10 weeks vacation and expect North America to be as cheerful while we 2x the work. Bureaucracy can be frustrating, i.e. we each have a thousand complex passwords and redundant systems for everything. They have adopted 100% open space even if you don't have a collaborative task, you WILL collaborate.
