Toxic work environment with no room to advance - Researcher Fors Marsh Employee Review

Overall issues: The biggest issues I faced on my team were (1) people not being held accountable for their work or their actions, and (2) management not having the guts to deal with major and minor issues head on. Other issues: As others have mentioned, some teams at FMG are simply toxic work environments that prioritize the work at all costs, putting pressure on employees to work nights and weekends. The work-life balance FMG touted so heartily was simply not there. There were persistent problems that cropped up while running studies, and rather than taking the time to step back and solve these issues “the right way”, problems were always “patched up” superficially, which did nothing to stop the issues from coming back. Additionally, there was almost zero onboarding. Onboarding consisted of a 25-page document with instructions on the software to download, basic company trainings to complete, and file locations for the team’s work. There was no guidance from supervisors. Additionally, people were thrown into projects before they could even finish this onboarding process, and were often put in positions they did not have the skills for. Again, this was an issue I encountered often—people not being vetted for their self-proclaimed skills. People were often assigned to projects in a role they did not have the skills for (e.g., statistical analysis). Team-specific SOPs were not taught or distributed to people on the team. Relatedly, knowledge of how to run studies or complete tasks was not shared or documented anywhere and relied on an individual asking everyone they knew to see who knew what about how to do things. However, you would often get a different answer depending on who you asked. Processes would have been a lot smoother had knowledge been stored in a central location and been implemented consistently across projects. The issue of burnout, while addressed directly by upper management, was not dealt with adequately on my team. Employees were asked to email their symptoms of burnout directly to the director of the team—otherwise, it was assumed that you were not burned out. People who did report burnout in this non-anonymized way were simply sent a reply email that said sorry you feel that way and that you should discuss this with your supervisor; even with all of these discussions, absolutely no changes were made. Myself and others were hired for positions we were overqualified for. For instance, people with PhDs and years of experience in contract work environments were routinely hired at the Researcher level. Not only that, but there was no guidance on how to advance, no substantive feedback on performance from supervisors or research advisors, and almost no examples of anyone being promoted. Finally, when interpersonal issues came up, there seemed to be a diffusion of responsibility about who would address it. No one—supervisors or director— seemed willing to have a frank conversation with those who were causing major issues in the work environment. As a result, the toxicity of the environment festered and people simply had to live with the lack of resolution.