GLG reviews

If you have any prior work experience, I strongly discourage you from taking a role at GLG, which is sad because I believe the business would be more infinitely more balanced and healthier if they actually had a true middle management layer. Very rarely do they hire anyone as a manager, so despite leadership experience, you will start at level 1 with all the undergraduates. Intellectually satisfying for approximately 3 months. You can learn to do these tasks, even in "Research," without applying creativity or ingenuity. This is a highly transactional environment. You need less time to think, more time to execute. They are really trying to elevate what they "do" as a business, but at the end of the day, the bread and butter product is a brief phone call between "experts" and the clients. Clients sometimes care about the GLG employees, but I found they rarely cared about the professional consultants. Total lack of respect for the professional's time, schedule, boundaries, etc. I also found the longer the tenure, the more inconsiderate GLGers became towards Council Members. Run predominately by 23-25 year old egomaniacs. There is a major sense of superiority among the different financial services teams as well. There are people in upper management who have been there for too long and who everyone acknowledges thwart progress and satisfaction among employees. There are an abundance of meetings. Less meetings and more time to actually work and leave at a decent hour would be encouraged. Typically inflexible when it comes to working from home (even though vast majority of work doesn't require you to be there). The hours are absolutely atrocious. If you aren't working all the time, then you aren't an asset to them. They praise work-a-holics. A lot of disparity depending on which area of the business you support - this goes between businesses (Corporate, Life Sciences, NAFS, PSF) and within the business themselves.

As to the tone of the review below, I would say this is the attitude and talking points many GLG lifers adopt after they accept that this is what the professional world has to offer. They know deep down that years of spamming has not led to industry experience, relevant knowledge and skills, or ability to conduct change management. That is GLG's fatal flaw. It's why it is a story of a company that is in an endless loop of discontent. All of the people who a few years back thought they were spending those monotonous hours doing admin duties to one day have a better work-life balance, something different to do, and have tech revolutionize the day-to-day have now come to tacit acceptance with the fact that there is nothing to show to the next employer. Knowledge an inch down is a Google search. You don't really learn about (insert industry or topic here) if you do an (Industry or Topic) GLG project. Anyone who says you get to learn a lot is someone who is deeply ignorant about what industry experience/knowledge actually is. "Associate, Hedge Funds" or "Manager, Life Sciences" or "Sr. Associate, Tech Media Telecom" sounds pretty damn nice! If they could get a job in that industry they put on their LinkedIn, they would have already left. Of course first jobs aren't ideal. But you are supposed to gain skills in your 20s. It is sad to see so many accept that their jobs should suck and their pay/skills should suffer. What is the point of taking this job if even after years of work you admit that you simply don't add enough value and are replaceable? If I'm a college grad with potential and I want to bust my tail, I should be able to add value to a company and not come to the conclusion that I will ultimately be worth very little. Maybe some people are entitled and overvalue themselves, but it would be wrong to say this is the majority... I believe the majority just want an opportunity and quickly realize GLG is not it. This "overvaluing" point also wouldn't explain why those who get brought in with significant experience in higher roles also come to the same conclusion about GLG The widespread submission among higher level managers should come as no surprise due to the way this company prioritizes conformity. Fresh perspective and courage should not be so highly advertised on GLG's list. I've seen countless examples of good management and ideas shot down because of insecurity or because senior leadership was simply a deaf bubble. I've heard senior leaders ask junior associates to "drink the Kool-aid" (not misquoted) instead of doing what good leaders should do in propelling and nurturing those with different perspectives. Career progression is artificial because of this cult mentality. Since skills and managerial potential don't actually matter, it's really just the wild west as far as promotions go. You are eligible within certain time bands, but they always change how they approach each cycle because they of course wildly mismanaged people the last half year. There are Managers that don't manager anything, Associates who have radically outperformed the average level to no benefit (seriously, why even have metrics?), and Chiefs of somethings whose only job it seems is to post pics with industry/media folks or go on the news about things not even remotely related to GLG. Real talk - the Manager title may be worth it if you've already sunk a year in... beyond that nothing actually will make a significant difference, and even saying Manager makes a significant difference is pushing it. Just play your cards right and don't step on anyone's toes, especially the very sensitive upper management.