Pros
* Good salary * Lots of benefits * Nice office * International environment * Hybrid model (Nobody keeps pushing you to go to the office) * Interesting challenges to solve * Smart team
Cons
When I joined the company they sold me the idea that my business unit was a "startup-like" environment where things move fast and all opinions are taken into consideration. Turns out it's precisely the opposite: it's rigid, biased, and waterfall. My experience with leadership was frustrating. When they were close, they would review every little nonsense of your work according to their own taste and make that task take 3x or 4x longer. When the leadership was distant, they seemed like "too busy" in their own shell of work making collaboration with them feel weird. At some point, they would require an agenda for a 15-minutes long conversation. Despite the type of leader one trait was very prominent; biased opinions. Bringing a new idea, process or experimentation seems to make the leaders immediately paralyze and argue against that. They would give their opinions first in order to establish common sense before the team and "force" the team to agree with them. They would, sometimes, get your suggestion, distort it and present it to the team as something completely unacceptable. To make them buy into your vision can be very tiring because they are really attached to what has worked before and fear changes. Apart from that, the leadership concentrates too much knowledge and seems to prefer to do things themselves than teach others to do them. There are people working for 3 years there that still don't know the basics and the leader bluntly overlooks that. There are some coaching people that if you don't agree with them they are going to try to make you sound stupid by appealing to some crazy fallacies like: "hey, do you know how much time I have been working in the industry?" - that has nothing to do with the problem discussed. But not only the decisions come from the direct leadership. They "flow" from people high in the hierarchy in the US that knows nothing about each team's dynamics and force the team to adapt to processes/tools that make no sense in that context. On the other hand, which is funny in its own way, my peers have been supportive and easy-going! Made some good friends there. To sum it up: I decided to leave Gartner because of poor direct leadership, lack of autonomy, and biased decisions. If all of that changes it would be a better place to work. Cons: * Terrible leadership * Slow development cycle * Decisions are waterfall * Toxic "above and beyond" culture * Small room for experimentation * Nonsense "coach" roles * Micromanagement * Process of growing is rather slow
