Pros
The people outside of senior leadership were genuinely great to work with. My immediate team was talented, collaborative, and consistently high performing. We had virtually no turnover during my time there, which speaks to the quality of the people doing the actual work. The flexible work schedule was also a meaningful benefit and one of the better aspects of working here.
Cons
Much of the work depended on a difficult client environment. Requirements frequently changed, priorities shifted, and client leadership turned over three times in two years. Long-term planning was nearly impossible because direction was constantly changing. Internal leadership made those challenges significantly harder. In two years I reported to five different managers. Only my first two provided consistent coaching and support. The final three were largely absent. Regular 1:1s were rare, feedback was minimal, and there was little investment in employee development. My final manager’s recurring comment was, “I don’t really know what your job is,” rather than working to understand it. When I proposed initiatives to improve program performance, I was simply told, “That’s not important right now,” without discussion or alternative direction. My performance review was particularly frustrating. It was written by a manager who had spent roughly 30 minutes with me during our entire working relationship. One criticism was that I had not done enough to help the CEO understand my role, despite never having access to or interaction with the CEO. More broadly, executive leadership often questioned what various employees did. That was difficult to reconcile because leadership approved the organizational structure and hiring decisions in the first place. Rather than creating clarity, there seemed to be confusion about roles after people had already been hired. Benefits were below average compared to many government contractors, particularly PTO accrual. HR was another weak point. Processes felt inconsistent, and employee relations issues were not handled with the urgency I would have expected. In one instance, an employee who had physically assaulted another employee remained employed for approximately 18 months before being terminated. I also had concerns about hiring practices. After declining to hire a referral from senior leadership because I believed the candidate lacked the required qualifications, I was accused of bias instead of having my hiring rationale evaluated on its merits. It was not uncommon to hear "I reached out to HR but never heard back." Strategically, the company appeared to pursue a very broad range of opportunities rather than building deep expertise in a smaller number of domains. That made it difficult to develop a clear identity with government customers. The company has also lost several recompete contracts in recent months, which are matters of public record.
