Pros
CEO is inspirational and actually a dynamic and engaging person in group settings (monthly townhalls) and one-on-one. Company is well-regarded and well-connected to entities and people around the world. The Board is thoughtful in its approach to good governance. The businesses are interesting and forward looking. Mission, vision, and values are reinforced by CEO and EVPs in relevant forums and messaging. There are some smart people who are great colleagues that seek mutual points of interest and collaboration. Depending on an employee's role, ambition, and manager, he/she/they can have a lot of autonomy and ability to drive their work based on their interests/expertise. Nasdaq did transition to remote work for Covid effectively and provides employees with work and personal-life resources (e.g., Calm app subscription, child care services discounts, health/gym discounts/services, flex days (free days off in addition to PTO), flexible schedules for many roles, additional sick days for Covid, etc.). Nasdaq says the right things for DEI, is working toward more disclosures in their public filings/website on ESG (including DEI), and has a robust group of employee networks.
Cons
Significant silos and fiefdoms create internal consternation at the expense of efficiency, innovation, and driving internal and external impact. Compensation structure and performance evaluation process lack transparency and foster a culture of mediocrity. Politicking and aligning with key allies often gives people job security, even though they lack substance. For all of Nasdaq's positives and the really cool company it could be, the question is typically what level of acquiescence can you accept and apathy can you handle. Passion and drive are often sadly deflated due to the following. Many departments have people who underperform, but there is not any accountability. Many mid-level managers are ineffective and follow management checklists/books but are not truly dynamic leaders. There is little room for advancement, because advancement to Associate Vice President require CEO approval and VP-level and above require CEO and Board Compensation Committee approval, and because they have a strict rubric for how many people can be advanced to each level within a fiscal year. The people in management act fearful of acknowledging that more than one person is deserving of the advancement because of the approval process. Compensation is below market in many roles. Even when receiving an annual performance review of "outstanding" (the highest level) multiple years in a row, there is little or no increase in compensation (not even meeting inflation or COLA). There is often under-resourcing that impacts ability to do work and drive client impact. Related, work-life balance is pretty awful. A 60-hour week is a normal minimum. There is often mandatory meetings and work that has to be done on vacation (due to my role and lack of support staff). Diversity is significantly lacking at senior director level and above. There is very much an old boys club in many leadership groups. I and some colleagues (particularly POC and women) have all experienced instances of biased behavior from colleagues, which often is unaddressed except through the People (HR) team providing mass trainings and materials on the topics. The underlying culture and people perpetuating biased behavior are not addressed.