It is absolutely not worth working at DNA. The culture has changed 100%, the managers just "yes" everyone to death because they are just worried about keeping their jobs. We do crap just to do it, usually because someone in Marketing (an out of touch MBA most of the time) has created a "project" in order to justify their jobs. Half of the people here are just doing busy-work BS to justify their jobs and all of our "leaders" just smile and say how great the project is! I think the change started when all of the TRUE leaders, from Levinson on down started to leave in droves. Now we are just left with a bunch of micro-manager incompetents who are always patting each other on the back.
I appreciate the passion of this response. I do think there are a lot of people working at Genentech who are looking around and asking WTF happened to the company I joined in 2000 (or whenever). DNA has changed, no question. And while I agree that leadership is always the key in any organization, I somewhat disagree that the reason for the change in DNA is that "true leaders left in droves".
Who has left that has had a major impact on the culture ?
Levinson is Chairman of the Board of Genentech and sits on Roche Board he didnt leave, but the CEO is in Basel now. Ebersman, not sure he really shaped the culture in a meaningful way at DNA. Scheler still here. Pat Yang, still here. Commercial leadership, Im not sure that any major players left since the acquistion quite honestly. . . . that leaves Sue Hellman, no question she was awesome in many respects, but her departure, imho, was more symbolic of the two critical shifts in DNA that changed the company - 1) Development no longer rules the roost; perhaps more importantly, 2) DNA moved from integrated vertical to US commercial affiliate
First, development had tremendous power and influence in DNA of old. This brought some very good things (decision making based on what was best for patients and following the science, acadmeic / university style environment, science-based selling and customer management, etc.). There were tradeoffs too: over-reliance on great data to sell products, lack of development, investment and execution of commercial business processes, tools and systems as a way to create scale, etc. But fundamentally, it created the culture of Genentec
When the acquistion happened, the most influential people in Development left the company. Among the reasons, most made a ton of dough and could afford to leave, but Id argue that many left because the merger marked the end of Genentech Development. Today there is no Genentech Development, its Roche development with a lot of (still) good DNA people.
2) A major structural shift happened when Genentech was acquired it moved from a US-only company of 10,000 employees vertically integrated across Research, Development, Commercial and Manufacturing to the US COMMERCIAL affiliate in an 80,000 person company. Research was essentially spun-off as gRed. Manufacturing absorbed by Roche and Development disappeared.
Did this change DNA? Absolutely. Working in Genentech is not like it was. Genentech was unique, whether you think good or bad, it was different. R&D ran the show and the scale was relatively small. The structure is completely different now. Roche still has great innovation, I really believe that. The R&D is still excellent (just as it was at Genentech). But working in commercial at Genentech is a lot different. Significant decisions and top down direction is coming less and less from EC decisions and more and more from Global, Basel influenced and based directives
I think the question that needs to be considered by the poster is not "Is it worth working at DNA anymore?" and rather "Do I want to work for Roche in the US?". The DNA that you are referring to in the initial question no longer exists . . . .