Pros
1) The firm employs some very intelligent, highly skilled and client-focussed consultants who are not just at the top of their fields globally, but are willing to share their expertise and develop others, regardless of practice or timezone. 2) There is excellent growth and prospects in key developing markets (both services and geographies), with a lot of market-leading work taking place; the firm generally does not stand in the way of this new business development (although it does not support it either). 3) An unpretentious atmosphere means that consultants can learn to think for themselves without fear of contradicting the party line; the firm does has methodologies but does not force them onto problems. 4) Towers Watson is a good employer and has a low-friction culture, offering a comfortable working environment – very accommodating of working mothers, with good formal and informal maternity and paternity benefits. 5) The Towers Perrin-Watson Wyatt merger went well (particularly relative to the experiences of most consulting/professional services firms’); a significant majority of consultants adopted the Towers Watson identity. 6) There is good workplace technology – particularly since the merger, attention to systems has improved significantly with widespread VPN availability, mobile technology provisioning, and new knowledge-management systems.
Cons
1) The main downside of Towers Watson is that the firm’s management is very US-centric and often has parochial attitudes towards other parts of the world. There is excessive actuarial focus, lack of business awareness and risk aversion among leadership. 2) Apart from support through professional actuarial examinations, there is little formal support for professional development. This puts a great deal of emphasis on individual consultants to develop themselves. For example, as the firm is organized by service line, it is dependent on individual motivation to develop any industry expertise necessary for projects independently. The firm’s leadership and management are not always supportive or understand the need for this, particularly if their own personal ambitions or industry understanding are weak. 3) As a senior consultant, there is no incentive or recognition for mentoring or developing junior consultants, except for internal motivations, such as sense of professional duty. Partly as a result of this, dual standards apply in some practices and offices, with local leaders giving noticeably better treatment to some individuals than others in terms of pay, projects, travel, special leave, etc. that is based on personal relationships rather than performance. This undermines trust among high-performers. 4) The insurance and actuarial practices are poorly integrated and have often been allowed to run as separate fiefdoms; consultants are visibly disconnected and often disinterested in collaborating, which can come across poorly to clients. 5) In common with other big firms, there are many mediocre consultants – some through lack of realised potential (due to a lack of planned training and development), and others through lack of willingness and talent (having realised that the firm will let them coast). However, this “dead wood” blocks career opportunities for the more committed and effective consultants – notably, some leaders take advantage of the comfortable working environment to have a good work-life balance without stretching themselves, but also block others from developing the business and potentially showing them up.