Not what I was hired for. - Distribution Designer Leidos Employee Review

1.0
Sep 4, 2025
Recommend
CEO approval
Business Outlook

Pros

Pros: Competitive compensation compared to industry averages. Some coworkers are willing to help when asked. Exposure to utility systems and standards (FirstEnergy, SPANS, CREWS, NESC).

Cons

Cons: The role I accepted was not the role I was told I’d be doing. The position was advertised as Distribution Engineer work (design, reconductoring, calculations, engineering support), but in reality, it was a QAQC role for 3PA Joint Use. This bait-and-switch created frustration and disappointment. Very little training or onboarding support. Proprietary, in-house programs were expected to be used immediately without proper guidance. Quality expectations, timelines, and processes were not clearly explained. Lack of leadership structure and poor communication. I often had to dig just to find procedure documents or training resources. This setup makes it easy for new hires to fail. Inconsistent feedback processes across QAQC staff, leading to confusion among designers. Transparency is lacking. If the intent is to place hires into QAQC before transitioning them into design roles, that should be made clear before accepting the offer.

Explore other reviews about Leidos

5.0
May 7, 2026
Recommend
CEO approval
Business Outlook

Pros

Large companies. Willingness to work with you.

Cons

Low paying. No hybrid opportunity

3.0
May 27, 2026
Recommend
CEO approval
Business Outlook

Pros

Leidos provides opportunities to work on complex government programs with meaningful technical challenges. Depending on the contract and team, there can be exposure to cloud infrastructure, cybersecurity, systems engineering, networking, and mission-focused work that is difficult to find elsewhere. The company also has a large footprint, so there may be internal opportunities for people who are able to navigate the organization.

Cons

My experience was that the quality of management varied significantly by program. Communication around expectations, roles, and priorities was often inconsistent, and decisions that affected employees were not always explained clearly or handled in a transparent way. Work-life balance also depended heavily on local management. Flexibility that existed in practice could be changed quickly, and employees were sometimes left trying to reconcile changing expectations with existing workloads and personal obligations. In my view, the company would benefit from stronger oversight of program-level management decisions, especially where employee responsibilities, workplace flexibility, and performance feedback are concerned. I also found that technical decision-making was sometimes driven more by schedule pressure than by sound engineering judgment. On complex government programs, that can create unnecessary risk and frustration for employees who are trying to do things correctly.

See reviews by: Helpful|Rating|Date|All