EAB reviews

The cons of working here include the highly cliquish atmosphere (if you're not a favorite of one of the big dogs, your work performance will not be viewed objectively); the disparity between the open, progressive culture of parent company The Advisory Board Company and Royall's more provincial "Old Richmond Money" culture; and the inability of managers to consider new and possibly more effective solutions and procedures. For most employees, assimilation into the white-bread, 40-and-younger, fashion/looks-oriented mindset is critical to survival. There are a few people who are able to pull off a left-of-center hairstyle or wardrobe piece because their supervisor understands it has nothing to do with performance, but the rest must follow strict unspoken guidelines. Had I known about all of this before joining the company, I would have remained at my previous job. By the way, the CEO of Royall met with each team immediately after his ascension, and while I can't speak for what he said in other team meetings, he did specifically encourage my team to go write a positive review on glassdoor.com.

EAB has a fundamental mismatch between what it claims to value (impact, ownership, innovation) and how it actually rewards people. Compensation is consistently below market, especially for high skill, high impact roles. This isn’t a case of being slightly conservative, it is materially uncompetitive, even after factoring in bonuses or long-term narratives about “growth” or “mission.” Top performers are paid similarly to average ones, which quickly disincentivizes excellence. The performance review process is opaque, slow, and largely disconnected from real outcomes. Delivering outsized impact does not reliably translate into recognition, promotions, or meaningful raises. Reviews feel more like justification exercises constrained by preset budgets than genuine evaluations of contribution. Merit is flattened. Exceptional work is acknowledged verbally but rarely rewarded structurally. Advancement depends more on timing, manager advocacy, and organizational politics than on objective results. Over time, this leads to attrition of high performers and retention of those optimized for the system rather than outcomes. Leadership messaging emphasizes growth and innovation, but compensation and review mechanics signal risk aversion and cost containment above all else.