World Economic Forum Reviews

For the first year on the job, you will repeated try to answer, "What we do?" For subsequent years, you will find a way to BS an answer that may or may not seem intelligible to a layperson. Our founder (who is still running the show for 40+ years) describes the Forum as adaptive to the needs of the global system. Others might say we're schizophrenic. Another review says management has a "weather-vane approach to strategy." I'm in incredible agreement with this statement. A shiny new trend/topic emerges and captures the attention of senior managers. Resources are diverted. Results are mixed. Like the obstinate Swiss alps visible from the windows of HQ in Geneva, the organization has resisted some innovative change. Process are burdensome, sacred and often times confusing. The main explanation being: This is how it's always been done. Some processes are set in stone: event logistics being the most notorious - do not try to mess with them. Yet some are curiously completely non-existent: business development, account management, project management. Knowledge is kept in the minds of employees and transferred verbally or through formal or informal meetings, not on any robust internal platform. We may tout the vast array of changes, new ideas, innovations, but at the heart of what the Forum does is staging Davos and similar events. Davos is where the working calendars start and ends. Most projects, constituent strategies, internal incentives are planned around Davos. The Forum is heavily an events organization. Decentralized management structure and a founder-first, top-down culture creates fiefdoms (a common word you will read on Glassdoor). Your time at the Forum will be heavily impacted by who your manager and your colleagues are. Some teams have stellar reputations with happy, engaged employees. Some teams are a recurring management quagmire with high turnover and distrust. Yet the Forum keeps these poor managers employed. Some have internal reputations as untouchable because they were hired by the founder. Top brass (the managing board) is heavily comprised of white men from Europe or North America. Why is it so difficult to hire and retain a female senior executive? Why is it so difficult to hire and retain a senior leader from the developing world? Career development is self-initiated. Talent development is not a core investment. Trainings are sparse and barebones. HR is mostly used for talent acquisition and benefits management. Don't expect career support from them.

- totally unprofessional management: everything revolves around huge egos of senior management, who knows who and there is no transparency around strategy, decisions or roles - senior management consists of faithful soldiers ( people who have been there forever but have no real competency to be in the role) and a few visiting "stars" who quickly leave when they see what it really is about inside the house - hire hugely overqualified people to do simple administrative tasks - unclear strategy and objectives - lacks focus - culture of fear : everybody is worried all the time because there is no clear strategy or objectives, and you can be fired overnight for most random reasons