Pros
Lidl is a frantic, frenetic environment just about everywhere you go which means the pace of work is fast and, at times, unforgiving. A by-product of this however is that you can genuinely get an exciting day-to-day office role here and with the right team environment socially, time can fly by, which is a real plus. Lidl doesn’t offer much of a package unless you’re relatively senior (we’ll come back to this in “cons”) but it does offer money that is competitive to start with and then *very* competitive over time to the extent that it’s quite difficult to leave in the long term without making yourself worse off. Increments are essentially guaranteed, but at lower levels, this comes at the cost of more of a flexibility package. This isn’t for everyone, but the money itself is very, very good. The lean structure if the business means you cover more ground than your job description implies, even if it’s not exactly what you were sold at interview, which keeps things exciting. Even at lower levels of the business, you can pick up tasks above your seniority and develop yourself. As an example, I found myself dealing with market leading suppliers/service providers in a certain field as an Administrator in a “22 grand job” among other things and this is exposure you don’t get anywhere else at a level so junior, not as broadly anyway. Lidl is an international business and it’s possible to develop an international career relatively easily if that’s something you’re after. You can get seconded, switch countries, etc. The international possibilities, if you put yourself out there, are significant, even if you don’t enter as a graduate. All in all, if you have the right mindset, and it requires a degree of resilience that not everyone has, you can be successful at Lidl and add value to the business and yourself, albeit not with anything that tangible on paper (professional qualifications etc).
Cons
For such an exciting, growing business it is still very much figuring itself out and is, in many ways, archaic and inefficient despite performing as well as it does. The two things the business struggles with are technology & facilities and brain drain. The entire office-based business having to work from home during COVID should force Lidl to “fail forwards” on the former point, as will the new head office. As things were, working flexibly was scarcely an option (usually a business culture thing, but in part due to antiquated business systems that limit remote access) and the Wimbledon facilities, while well located, are pretty tired and have been outgrown. Whilst Tolworth isn’t as accessible, the new head office has been so long in the detailed planning that it can’t fail to be good. The future here is much brighter and shouldn’t deter anyone from applying. That said, the situation beforehand wasn’t good and people applying need to be aware of that if it features in their expectations. Then there are the reasons why Lidl has a retention/fluctuation problem, which in head office stems from two things Firstly, there is a two-class society, dictated by your entry into the business. Beyond a certain point, usually quite early down the graduate route, you unlock a package to go with your salary (private healthcare, work phone, car etc etc) without discernible difference in job role (managers still do tasks in most cases, which is bizarre) from a direct entry Assistant Team manager who gets none of these benefits. At manager level, salary is incredibly attractive/retentive which makes it difficult to leave without worsening yourself financially. Rotation doesn’t solve it, as people stay and comfortably ride the carousel in whatever job they land in next. This results in an immovable, well paid cohort of graduate entry (with some exceptions, but not many) colleague blocking the way up for others just as talented due to Lidl’s lean structure. Those below the glass ceiling then have to side-step within the business (which can take months), be lucky in a restructure, or leave altogether. Secondly, this is compounded by a real internal talent recognition deficiency. There is a real tendency to make your team’s “best player” a “team captain” without considering the entire talent pool; there are inevitably colleagues with a broader skill base who may be better suited at the next level up than your best employee at that job is. I have seen too many talented, respected colleagues with excellent skills well suited to a leadership position be passed over a more rough-around-the-edges colleague who happened to be good at what they did at a non-management level, who simply aren’t management material. The result is the Peter Principle being played out and talented colleagues getting frustrated and walking away. There are good people in the business who are the absolute opposite of this and when you work with them, it’s a breath of fresh air. Yet, depressingly, they are not the rule.
