While some parts of the firm function reasonably well, the Advisory practice, particularly at the enterprise consulting level, lacks strategic coherence and maturity. The partner model operates largely in silos, with individual agendas taking precedence over a unified vision or long term strategy. As a result, the firm often positions itself as competing with top tier consulting firms without the governance, operating model, or strategic backbone to support that ambition.
I joined during a period of post acquisition integration, which was poorly managed and heavily politicized. Decision making was opaque, roles were unclear, and internal power dynamics frequently overrode sound business judgment. Marketing, in particular, was treated as a convenient scapegoat when broader strategic or leadership gaps became visible.
The culture at senior levels is highly homogeneous, and despite public commitments to inclusion, my lived experience suggested otherwise. I encountered repeated situations that made me question whether diverse perspectives were genuinely valued. Over time, this had a real impact on confidence and psychological safety.
Performance and advancement appeared less tied to capability or outcomes, and more to alignment with specific partners and unquestioning compliance. Independent thinking, constructive challenge, or modern marketing leadership were not encouraged. High performers who sought clarity, strategy, or accountability often struggled to progress.
There is also a concerning amount of internal politics and behind the scenes maneuvering that distracts from client value and professional growth, far more than one would expect from a firm of this size and reputation.
I would not recommend this firm for marketing professionals or strategic roles seeking clarity, fairness, or modern leadership. There are better environments for people who want to do meaningful, strategic work without navigating unnecessary politics.