Pfizer reviews

The high compensation has some downsides. It tends to attract people, who are very educated and intelligent, but who don't necessarily have the impetus to work as a team. At least in the location where I worked, there tended to be an "every man for himself" attitude. Furthermore, many people who had been there for a number of years felt entitled. The attitude extends to promotion practices and opportunities for growth. Pfizer touts there "open job posting" system, but in my experience this is only a cover. Decisions on promotions and new positions are made by a few people and are often based on who you know, not what you are qualified for. The open job posting system also allows for managers to "wash their hands" of any responsibility in promotion or development of their employees. While I agree that it should be the employee's responsibility to manage his/her own career, many employees don't have insight into what other positions really mean or what they might be qualified for -- especially in such a large company.

Because of the size, politics is very pronounced especially in regards to projects, budgets, and the all important compensation. The lack of leadership has devastated this company and is eating at the core of the company, its scientists. Many excellent people have left for other companies and professions. The strive to please Wall Street and the "shareholders" has hurt the core research with management making decisions to hit numbers instead of doing good science. In addition, a total lack of communication from upper management is quickly decaying any morale and trust the employees have with the people leading our company. Compensation is a highly suspect and a year of good work can be downgraded to allow others to "fit" into a specific bucket or grade. This highly subjective method for grading an employee is demoralizing and doesn't promote consistent performance or giving the extra effort.