Pros
- the people. Excepting management, the people are generally absolutely lovely. There’s a strong bond between the mostly young workforce, in part due to sharing the experience of dealing with inept management on a daily basis. - the pay rises are decent, although this is in itself somewhat problematic because people get trapped there as they would struggle to find the same pay elsewhere. - as a researcher, you have the opportunity to build knowledge of a sector of policy and become acquainted with a wide range of senior figures in the sector. There aren’t many first jobs which give you this opportunity. - There are a couple of people in lower-middle-management who are genuinely knowledgeable and don’t treat you like a child. -If spun correctly, the work can look impressive on your CV, and many people have utilised this and gone on to great jobs. near the train station, so you don’t have to live in Bracknell.
Cons
- senior management. This has been widely covered by previous reviews, but it’s worth reiterating: it’s widely known that they allow their moods to influence how they deal with people, and that innovative ideas are usually shot down instantly. However, day-to-day contact with them is minimal. - middle management. It’s difficult to know where to start in explaining just how infuriating the (upper) middle layer of management is in editorial. For me, it was far worse than senior management, and ultimately what drove me out of the job. To this day, I cannot work out what their actual purpose is beyond micromanaging staff and attending meetings. It consists of people who have risen through the company by agreeing unconditionally with senior management, and are stuck at WFP because they don’t have the skill set to earn even half their wage elsewhere. They are not a helpful intermediary between you and senior management and are in no way there to help researchers. Favouritism is also par for the course, and has led to researchers at the same level being treated very differently despite there being no difference in work output. - micromanagement: this deserves a point of its own. It’s beyond absurd that WFP hires graduates only to have them micromanaged by people who have long forgotten what it’s like to actually organise a seminar. In addition to long weekly meetings where every part of a forum’s work is scrutinised, researchers are required to send ‘start of day’ and ‘end of day’ emails detailing their work plans for the day and then a list of exactly what they’ve done. This is purportedly done to help manage workloads, but in reality it’s just a reflection of a total lack of trust and adds to workloads. - anyone in their notice period is treated like crap, and this applies throughout the office. From the moment I handed my notice in, I was effectively cut out of the forum and treated as invisible. - Lack of diversity. Editorial has a lack of women and POC. Certain managers have clear favourites, unrelated to work performance, and clearly linked with who they personally like/want to be friends with (which has a negative impact on women’s experiences in particular). - The job involves very little actual research. 90% of researchers' time is spent doing what amounts to little more than admin work, and the internal bureaucracy leads to tasks taking far longer than they need to. If you’re a recent grad looking for a stepping stone into policy, WFP could be for you. But go in with your eyes open: know that these reviews are broadly accurate, and that if you accept the job, you will be frustrated on a daily basis. 1-2 years is more than enough - squeeze it for all the knowledge and contacts you can, and get out before the pay rises trap you forever. Remember, though, that this is a company which has banned workers getting a train which gets them in at 9.02, regardless of how much overtime they put in.