Disorganized environment with poor management and no training - Consultant Eradigm Employee Review

An option to start a career in consulting and get exposure to pharma.

Hours are long as you are put on far too many projects at the same time - good for company profitability I guess but employees are paying the price. There are definitely problems balancing sales and capacity. The consulting market is full of opportunities at the moment, even if you are considering a small firm in the pharma / healthcare sector - Eradigm should probably be a third tier option.

Exposure to consulting-style work and client deliverables. Opportunity to build resilience in a high-pressure environment.

There is a lack of basic structure across the organisation. No clear SOPs are in place, leaving new joiners to figure out expectations on their own. Individuals are expected to independently navigate their entire therapeutic area with minimal guidance, which is particularly challenging for those coming from academia who require a more structured transition. Project onboarding is inconsistent and often superficial. Expectations vary significantly depending on the project and manager, making it difficult to understand what “good” looks like. Senior Consultants are frequently overstretched and, at times, lack sufficient therapeutic area depth, which limits the quality of guidance provided. Conference coverage is poorly supported in some projects. Despite being positioned as a key learning opportunity, there is little to no structured training or follow-up. In practice, individuals are often left to navigate key interactions at booths independently during first conference coverage with limited guidance even when supported by a PM. The quality of the experience depends entirely on who you are staffed with, making development inconsistent and largely down to luck. The feedback culture is often described as a strength, but in reality it can feel one-sided and overly critical. Feedback tends to focus on mistakes without providing clear, actionable guidance or recognising progress. There is limited psychological safety, and raising concerns or providing upward feedback does not always feel well received. There also appears to be inconsistency in how analysts are treated across projects. Experiences can vary significantly depending on the PM or team, with some analysts receiving more supportive and respectful guidance, while others may be spoken to harshly or criticised for mistakes without constructive support. This lack of consistency contributes to an uneven and, at times, discouraging working environment. Communication is inconsistent, and there is a lack of alignment across managers, which leads to conflicting expectations. Internal dynamics and relationships can influence how situations are interpreted, raising concerns around fairness. While there is a stated expectation not to work beyond 17:30, there is an implicit expectation to continue working due to work-load even during weekends. This disconnect creates unnecessary pressure and ambiguity around boundaries. A noticeable number of analysts (Associate Consultants) and senior analysts hired between August 2025 and March 2026 have since resigned, which raises serious questions about retention, long-term sustainability, and the overall employee experience. In my view, this reflects an environment where support and development can depend heavily on who you work with, rather than being consistently embedded across the company. When junior employees are not given structured guidance, treated consistently, or supported by people who genuinely invest in their development, they are not set up to succeed.