1. There is a clear and persistent lack of communication from
upper management to the scientists. At the start of most weeks—or even entire months—you have little to no visibility into what tasks are coming, when they are due, or how they fit into broader strategic goals. Expectations often only become clear at the moment work is due, turning deliverables into last-minute surprises rather than planned
efforts.
2. Some managers may show little interest in building relationships with their direct reports or supporting their professional development. Spending most of the week working remotely and appearing briefly for 1-on-1 meetings is treated as sufficient, but it rarely reflects meaningful
engagement. In some cases, managers approve documents without thorough review or attend meetings while visibly distracted, unable to give their full attention. A particularly telling example of this disconnect is when managers ask team members what they are working on—despite having assigned no work or communicated any upcoming priorities. This results in a performative cycle where employees claim to be progressing on long-standing tasks, and those claims go unquestioned or even praised.
3. Accountability is a constant point of discussion, yet it is rarely demonstrated in practice. If you need to accomplish even a basic task, expect to contact 5—sometimes 10—different people, each of whom redirects you elsewhere. Simple requests, like activating a routine
service/system/training or minor work to finalize time-pressed documents, can take weeks because responsibility is continuously passed along rather than owned.
4. High turnover rate only amplifies this issue. It creates an environment where accountability becomes more performative than real,particularly when former employees are blamed for ongoing problems. Those who
leave are often described internally as difficult or incompetent, regardless of their actual contributions. However, conversations with former employees quickly reveal that this narrative is misleading. It often serves as a way for current staff to position themselves more favorably, reinforcing the idea that staying is synonymous with competence—rather than addressing underlying organizational issues.
5.It often feels as though entire departments could disappear
without significantly affecting operations, as reliance on external CROs and CDMOs continues to sustain output—regardless of quality.
6.There is little incentive to pursue meaningful research; instead, appearing busy is often more valued than producing impactful work. This issue has become more apparent given the company’s limited pipeline of projects advancing toward clinical stages, painfully highlighted in the recent public presentation at JPM Health Conference. The gap between early-stage and late-stage programs, compounded by cuts to translational research, raises concerns about long-term sustainability.
7. There is an overabundance of director-level roles, which
dilutes accountability and creates opportunities for inefficiency. This
structure is problematic on its own, but even more so when it allows
individuals to contribute minimally while maintaining senior titles.
