Gilead Sciences reviews

Cons out weigh pros... Gilead (1) runs “lean” meaning it’s top heavy with management trying to push its employees to continually do more with less, (2) employee performance reviews are based upon an unspoken quota system or “bell curve”, (3) benefits lag industry standards, typically Gilead follows Genentech’s policies, (4) being top heavy creates limited career mobility so be prepared to put in more effort towards your self branding, (5) culture is passive aggressive and (6) large-scale initiatives are run poorly with inadequate change management and tactical planning.

New leaders have come in, and while change is needed for Gilead to continue to grow and diversify out of virology, it should keep the best of what got it here. New leaders have not endeared themselves to the company employees--I recognize the pandemic has contributed to this--but efforts have been slow and they are largely silent and unseen. They have also help create an "old vs new" by creating a very top-heavy structure of VPs and SVPs, almost all from GNE or similar, and indicating that the talent here isn't ready for these roles. Meanwhile, those who have been here through the successes, are at ED level and looking at glass ceilings but expected to break backs to get things done and lead large teams. These leaders came from other big companies but were not the reasons those companies succeeded, and many of them were Senior Directors or ED at other companies and got VP level jobs here. No one knows what they do. Portfolio decisions are not made, but rather nickel and dime and grind teams to death, avoiding to make decisions.