Great colleagues, but wrong people in leadership - Principal Researcher Mathematica Employee Review

- Leadership does not proactively engage with or listen to middle managers: The company has stellar staff who act as supervisors, directors, and VPs. However, leadership (that is senior VP or anyone with chief in their title) does not engage with these staff in any meaningful capacity to understand issues and solve challenges. Instead, they are simply given talking points and pro forma Q&A's where questions and concerns are minimized with those same talking points. - Unqualified SVP who plays favorites: The current SVP of a large division has his favorites, especially within a certain area. This area is allowed to play by a different set of rules (for example, allowing staff to be committed to projects well over 100% committed, or operating a toxic and punitive environment). Recently, the SVP decided to anoint a new director from his favorite area without openly competing it internally or even announcing the potential formation of a new position. To add insult to injury, the new position's scope is unclear and is likely redundant with another division. This SVP is unqualified for the position. He lacks transparency and original ideas, micromanages all of his VPs and directors, and has an overinflated sense of self. - Uninspiring leaders with little diversity in thought and experience: This tough year for contractors have been made even tougher by the communication by leadership. The current leadership has yet to convey a thoughtful and compelling vision for the future. Even compassionate messages meant to boost staff morale are read off of talking points. Additionally, they seem care little about the optics of decisions and announcements (for example, adding a new – potentially redundant- director shortly after staffing actions or sending invitations to all staff meeting that include people recently RIF'ed). There is a defensiveness to questions arounds decisions and dissent. Finally, the majority of leaders are simply repeating what their predecessors did or what they themselves have done before. For example, our CEO has been in his role since 2007 and at the company since the late 80's. Despite a vote of no confidence from the employee-owners, he has yet to step down or make staffing changes to the leadership structure. The organization desperately needs an infusion of outsiders at the top levels of leadership. - Bloated management and large pay gaps: There is a large compensation gap between the senior staff winning and completing the work and leadership. Senior staff give much of themselves to execute the work and contribute to business development - while being on the hook for the profit and loss of their projects and return on investment for business development. However, the bonuses are capped for these staff at significantly lower amounts than leadership (whose jobs are almost exclusively on overhead). Additionally, there are far too many senior leaders with vague roles with no clear value add. A good number of these leaders have base pay and bonuses much higher than the senior project staff who have a much clearer benefit to the company.