employer cover photo
employer logo
employer logo

Partners in Performance

Acquired by Accenture

Is this your company?

Partners in Performance Reviews

4.2

79% would recommend to a friend

(318 total reviews)
avatar

Skipp Williamson

91% approve of CEO

72% positive business outlook

Partners in Performance has an employee rating of 4.2 out of 5 stars, based on 318 company reviews on Glassdoor which indicates that most employees have an excellent working experience there. The Partners in Performance employee rating is in line with the average (within 1 standard deviation) for employers within the Management and consulting industry (3.7 stars).

Reviews by job title

318 reviews
2.0
29 Jul 2020

Nice People, terrible culture

Recommend
CEO approval
Business outlook

Pros

A lot of very nice and very smart people work here. I’ve made some friendships that have long outlasted our mutual employment at PIP. There is a lot of opportunity to learn if you are prepared to make it happen for yourself Depending on your manager, there is usually a reasonable level of flexibility in the workplace The lack of bureaucracy can be very refreshing after working in larger organisations The bi-annual regional conferences are a lot of fun Within Australia at least, it is a decent name to have on you CV.

Cons

It has taken me several months since leaving the firm to decompress enough to feel I can write a balanced review. Which says a lot in and of itself. I think there are enough other reviews that speak to the pros and cons of life here as a consultant. Let’s talk about working in PIP Global Services (head office / support services, aka PGS). 1) You will be paid significantly worse than consultants at a similar level of experience/seniority. Unless you really go in fighting, your salary will only ever increase in line with the CPI. Your bonus will be token at best, potentially non-existent, and it will not reflect performance. Unlike consultants, you will never get 110% bonus for excellent performance and unless you are really screwing up, you will not receive less than 100% – generally there is very little effort put into the performance / salary / bonus review process for PGS staff. Consultants can also earn “firm building points” for activities such as presenting at a team meeting, or writing a blog post, or posting on linkedin, which translate into additional bonus. As a PGS employee you are not eligible to earn FB points, but you will still be encouraged/required to undertake these activities. 2) You must learn to live with a lack of job security. Redundancies happen constantly, both in the consulting pool and at PGS. Redundancy is frequently used in lieu of performance management and it is shocking the number of roles that get made redundant only to be filled again within a matter of months. It’s been particularly unpleasant watching this firm’s response to COVID – they cut headcount early and they cut deep, all the while plastering LinkedIn with posts promoting how they were doing great and could help other firms to respond to the crisis. 3) Within PGS there is very limited scope for career progression. This is mostly due to the fact that PGS teams are generally quite small and fairly flat; there is simply no ladder to climb. However, there is also very little acknowledgement or support for those who do wish to progress. Almost all training provided to PGS staff is soft skills, and/or aimed at helping you do your current role better, rather than preparing you to take the next step. Movement between teams/depts is very uncommon and promotions only happen when a manager leaves; making career advancement of a war of attrition. Also PGS roles are very niche (eg: there is no such thing as an HR generalist; the HR functions are split across 4-5 distinct teams), meaning you will become an expert in one very limited area only, which might not translate well to roles at other companies. 4) There is a huge chasm between how the consultants are treated vs how PGS are treated. All the company’s energy is focussed on the consultants, any benefits felt by PGS is merely a by-product. Be prepared to feel like a second class citizen. Examples: 1) a few years ago the company had a massively busy end to the year, everyone was exhausted and approaching burnout, so they decided to thank staff for their efforts. While this was a nice gesture, it feel a little hollow when consultants were given a nice bottle of champagne and two extra days of annual leave, whereas as PGS staff only received the champagne. 2) when implementing a new parental leave policy, there was serious conversation between the (98% male) director group whether this would be offered to all staff or only consultants. 3) All consultants receive regular, ongoing training aimed at helping them progress in their careers. Until recently, PGS staff weren’t even allowed to complete the company’s own in-house trainings, and even now it’s only if you push for it, it’s never offered. 5) The firms still needs to do a lot of work on diversity and inclusiveness. While they are aware of this and pay a lot of lip service, there are yet to be any tangible results. They talk about recruiting more (any!) senior women, yet all five directors hired in the last 18 months are men. Within PGS, gender diversity is less of an issue and on the surface it looks like a relatively racially diverse department also. But look a little closer and you’ll notice that every single management position is filled by a Caucasian. More generally: 6) There is a serious lack of emotional intelligence at senior management level. This is true both across the firm as a whole and the top echelon of PGS, and it is very evident in the way the firm treats its staff and the culture within the firm. 7) Take the glassdoor ratings with a large grain of salt. Notice that the positive reviews come in clusters (eg: 18 five-star reviews over the course of 3 days in January 2020) – this is 100% because management have asked people to go and put up good reviews as part of their marketing/recruitment strategy.

2.0
25 Sept 2019
Recommend
CEO approval
Business outlook

Pros

Good absolute pay at lower and mid-level roles Challenging hard-core implementation work You typically won't need to relocate Mostly appreciative clients Adrenaline rush locations People at your peer level can be nicer than average, or you just spend so much time with them, that they start to feel like family You can choose not to go to certain locations if you feel they are too dangerous

Cons

The company gives significant monetary incentives to post in social media and promote the company to peers. I would take that into account, more so than with other companies. The CEO built a fantastic business model, does a fantastic job and is a great role model. However the CEO sits very far away from North America, and North America, even in this day and age and despite best intentions, can be very discriminatory. At first glance, and during the initial years working here, it seems like a lovely diverse place. Diversity is especially strong at the lower levels. It is all fun and games at the lower ranks. However, as I tried to promote to upper levels, there was a sense and many clues that some white males have a much easier time to the top. 100% of the cohort above my rank was white males, which statistically should have happened only 1 in 3700 instances. Young Directors in North America are all white males. The few Directors who are more diverse typically had to pay much longer dues and/or seem more talented at selling and math. The hurdles can manifest themselves in multiple ways: In different pay for the same role, in different contractual terms, in lower initial rank offered to join the company, in racial derogatory comments that you never heard before in your career, in different attitudes towards mistake forgiveness, in individualized pressures to spend extra years at a certain seniority, in lower likelihood of being transferred to a country or continent of your choice, in lower likelihood of working in certain more desirable locations or special comfortable projects, etc. The CEO, at some point, had to send a company-wide memo about racist comments happening way too often in the company, which is sad, given that the CEO is from a minority herself. The meat of the issue is not so much the superficial racist comments. The potential inability to be invited to the top ranks in equal terms is what it's really damaging, not only to egos and confidence but also to families. Fortunately, the CEO is on top of it, and that has inspired the fear of God on some of the bad actors, who at least will cover their tracks better. Potential professional pigeonhole: The firm has the image of mining consulting boutique, and the experience might not easily transfer to other jobs or industries. The main focus is to implement an existing specialized methodology, running on proprietary software. The job does not necessarily involve fancy thought processes from scratch. On occasion, it feels like your job is to push and sell software implementation. Potentially dangerous: There is a strong emphasis on safety, as many engagements are in dangerous locations, where other consulting firms won’t go. However, safety might just be part of the marketing strategy, because mining clients are very safety conscious. Some of my colleagues had serious infections or serious near misses, and some of the North American Directors don't have a strong safety background (they come from traditional consulting firms) and have a strong incentive to dilute or hide safety issues. A low daily probability of something happening, when compounded over a long period of time becomes a high probability, so please be safer than you think you need to be. Travel: Worse than your average consulting job. Sometimes it resembles an offshore platform job. If you are not single, make sure you have a supportive, and loyal spouse or partner at home. For someone who might need an excuse to be away from home often, this job is ideal. Mid and lower-level consultants don’t necessarily get as much exposure to delivering client presentations and accessing more senior client members, as they could in a traditional consulting firm. Some Directors complain in private (and in Glassdoor) that Director pay is significantly lower than the market rate, due to the company structure. The competition has been catching up to this model, and firms like McKinsey offer coaching and implementation practices. The company has tried to transition away from mining, and into other industries in North America, but some of those projects had poor results and triggered a local crisis. North America had to go through a turnaround exercise and refocus in mining projects (better for the bottom line but less attractive to employees). Maybe the company was not successful in expanding to other sectors in North America partly because of a lack of diversity. Some research suggests that lack of diversity is more likely to concentrate B level players at the top, because of the smaller talent pool. A redeeming or karma factor of potential career path inequalities is that the CEO, being from a minority herself, retains a large percentage of the economics of the firm, which partially explains the relatively low Director pay. Good for her!

1.0
4 Nov 2020

If you can avoid working here, I would

Anonymous employee
Recommend
CEO approval
Business outlook

Pros

There are some really nice people who work there, who I will continue to stay in contact with.

Cons

Whilst I was there, I knew partners in performance wasn’t the greatest of employers, but the people I worked directly with were great and that clouded my judgement. Since I have left I have gained a new perspective on what I would consider a psychologically safe environment looks like. Where you feel safe to feel heard, to voice your opinion, and you feel secure. Interestingly I have heard the same from other former employees. I didn’t realise at the time how insecure I felt in my role having seen many colleagues walked but it would be a constant fear that I could be next despite fully meeting requirements and being generally liked (as were the colleagues who were walked). The common theme appeared of all the people I’ve seen walked, was that their line manager didn’t like them or felt threatened by them. Bullying is rife at the firm, at all levels, and it starts at the top and is common across all layers of leadership who emulate this behaviour. What exasperates this bullying issue is that there is no one employed who is qualified in dealing with these issues. It surprises me that a company that prides itself on academic excellence has a clear absence of qualifications or any familiarity with employment law, hence why such things like bullying continue, and staff getting dismissed without cause. The sheer fact is, if you have any issue you would normally go for support for, you have learnt to know there is little point, as they give you a bit of lip service but ultimately will side with the more senior person despite the kind of allegations you may be raising. This effectively means, if you want to keep your job, you stay quiet as there is no one you can actually talk to. This, as you can imagine, can be very stressful and harbours a really psychologically unsafe environment. Internal surveys are completed on a regular basis so that you can submit “anonymous” feedback and have your say on your experiences. I have brought up in these surveys, at every opportunity, that there have been some very serious public displays of bullying to myself and other colleagues. This feedback in the surveys goes directly to the directors. Apart from the acknowledgement of “we need to do something”, not once in my tenure has anything ever been done. There appears to be a serious lack of care at the top unless it affects the bottom line. I always had my doubts working there, but upon leaving it is so clear how toxic the company is. My advice to anyone seeking employment here is to proceed with caution. Complete your own research and connect with other members of the firm outside of the people you are spoon fed to you at the time of recruiting. And to reiterate an earlier Glassdoor review, do not believe all these “positive” reviews. Whilst I’m sure there are a handful of genuine ones, majority of these reviews are linked to current consultants receiving “firm building points” (ie their bonus). Having spoken to many former employees I can say that they all reiterate this view. It took me a few months of my new job to get my head around the fact that my boss and my colleagues are nice! At the time of writing, I understand times are tough and being picky about a job is a luxury, but if you accept a role with partners in performance, please go in with your eyes wide open as to the environment and role that you have been sold.

Viewing 1 - 3 of 318 Reviews

Glassdoor has 335 Partners in Performance reviews submitted anonymously by Partners in Performance employees. Read employee reviews and ratings on Glassdoor to decide if Partners in Performance is right for you.