Thermo Fisher Scientific reviews

Engineers are pressured into coming up with unrealistic schedules and then get in trouble if they don't meet the schedules. Products are released with inadequate testing due to no test plans and the engineers are blamed for the resultant bugs. We had stand-up meetings every morning at 9:00, attendance was taken right at 9:00 and you wouldn't get counted if you were more than a few seconds late, and you'd get in trouble for being late too many times. And the pay is low.

If you are not tapped as a high potential, or consistent "clear-strength" performer on reviews you will not reach the executive level. The issue with this approach is that stretch goals and "at-standard" performance will effectively remove you from consideration for advancement. The Performance Management Development process is often "gamed" to the point that it is almost impossible to utilize historical reviews as indicators of future performance. An additional "con" is the mentality of the implied perpetual layoff. This means that the bottom 10% is consistently being culled from the ranks and at any given time should the annual plan become at risk then broader staff reductions occur. The last major con is the amount of dysfunction between the financial and CRM systems associated with the different business units. No apparent effort exists to solve for the train wreck of data and systems. Root cause is simply that the company is a collection of brands (often former competitors) whose leadership is incentivized to achieve their own specific growth target. While lip service is paid to the Customer Allegiance Score (CAS), the customer's perspective or needs are a distant thought when it comes to meeting profit targets. This happens because true comprehensive competition for the entire suite of products and services doesn't exist and the customer has no choice other than to accept the goods or services offered and priced in the manner that suits the business unit or division.