Elanco IAC review: - Senior Associate Statistician Elanco Employee Review

2.0
May 30, 2021
Recommend
CEO approval
Business outlook

Pros

*Good Work life balance. *Nothing much its like a startup .

Cons

* Leaders don't take criticism, if you retaliate on something they will make it difficult for you to work. * Work is not good, they make programmers do manual data entry QC not having any database as such. * Toxic behavior of supervisors and not even management going to listen. * Poor work techniques , not following any guidelines. * Boss is always right, they follow either my way or highway..

avatar
Elanco Response
4y
Thank you for sharing your experiences. We will take your feedback seriously because we want our people to feel heard.

Explore other reviews about Elanco

5.0
May 14, 2026
Recommend
CEO approval
Business outlook

Pros

Management listens to their emoloyees. Great benefits.

Cons

Old equipment. Lots of forced ot for hourly employees

avatar
Elanco Response
2d
We appreciate your positive feedback regarding management and benefits. At Elanco, we are dedicated to the wellbeing of our employees and are always looking for opportunities for improvement - we thank you for your feedback!
2.0
Feb 20, 2026
Recommend
CEO approval
Business outlook

Pros

Plenty of great, passionate coworkers who work hard and collaborate. I had a lot of professional flexibility and my job was always interesting. Process teams on the manufacturing floor is a great system. Offsite resources, especially technical experts, are great.

Cons

Expect to be firefighting constantly and frequently fighting against an aging facility and outdated processes. No unified vision or clear prioritization from management. Misalignment between site leadership and upper/off-site management created sustained operational friction and stress for employees. Leadership turnover was frequent, contributing to ongoing instability. Because of all this, there was a super low morale and a feeling of widespread fatigue. Inconsistent communication and decision-making standards contributed to a low-trust culture, including regular informal discussion of colleagues and unprofessional and sometimes intimidating behavior in meetings. Performance feedback and perceived value were highly dependent on shifting leadership dynamics rather than consistent, objective criteria. Employees could move from being strongly supported to heavily criticized with little change in actual performance. Although a nine-box review process was supposedly used, individual outcomes were not transparently shared with employees. Onboarding and training for specialized roles were underdeveloped. Compensation was just fine for workload and scope of responsibility.

1
See reviews by: Helpful|Rating|Date|All