Program managers have effectively zero oversight from (or accountability to) corporate leadership, as the organizational breakdown of the company sets large programs as "offices" unto themselves. The tendency this creates is that programs become the personal feifdom of whomever runs them. Favored team members become obvious, and bias tends to control how work is divided.
Though programs of large size are treated like offices, they don't actively engage with local offices much, so staff can feel isolated from corporate resources and benefits. Managers aren't equally willing to help navigate internal processes, so experiences may vary on approval for training, certification, or some professional expenses.
As a whole, the firm does a poor job managing technical subcontractors, and could do better at providing meaningful mentorship and instruction to smaller firms if they're being hired as a development opportunity. Unclear expectations create more work for internal and external staff alike. Also, at least some due diligence should be performed to assess whether the contractor is actually capable of performing work they've been hired to do.
Technical quality on deliverables varies, and the emphasis on it skews away from industry best practices to lean into what clients are comfortable accepting, and no better. Not all clients are in the same place from a management methodology point of view, but there is a minimal professional responsibility to, if not demonstrate the value of adhering to certain standards, then the risk factors associated with skirting them.
