Lockheed Martin reviews

4.1

84% would recommend to a friend

(2,132 total reviews)
avatar

James D. Taiclet

83% approve of CEO

73% positive business outlook

Reviews by job title

2K reviews

Reviews about "Management"

Return to all reviews
3.0
Jun 19, 2012

Company

Recommend
CEO approval
Business Outlook

Pros

-good benefits -good work environment -health care

Cons

-salary increases -lack of promotion -management

2.0
Jun 12, 2012
Recommend
CEO approval
Business Outlook

Pros

Work life balance! Everyone leaves the office exactly when they hit 40 hours (unless they are getting paid overtime). In fact, your manager will often need to give you APPROVAL to work over 40 hours. Alternate schedules like 9/80, or 4/10 are often approved without much hassle.

Cons

It's very hard to find employees who actually care about software development at LM, even those who do care tend to have very little knowledge of anything remotely modern. "What is an 'XML File'?" - Anonymous "Senior Staff" Software Engineer It's not uncommon to work on 10 year old workstations running Windows 2000. The company has an absurd amount of process and seemingly limitless red-tape but there are no real best practices or meaningful standards for software development. At a high level it doesn't seem like the company even acknowledges software exists despite pumping out millions of lines of it. Salary is middle of the road, and it's very hard to quickly move up the ladder due to strict minimums for different job titles. LM is an incredibly bloated organization, there are layers and layers of management who seem to have no real responsibility. It's very likely your manager will be completely disconnected from you and your work. This is great for people who want to "coast by", but is very frustrating for top performers. It's a fine place to work for a few years to kickoff a career, but make sure you leave before you are robbed of your passion.

2.0
Jun 12, 2012
Recommend
CEO approval
Business Outlook

Pros

3 day weekends every other week. Relatively easy to get by with mediocre effort so long as your project has a lot of hours to burn. Company name looks good on your resume to other employers.

Cons

Overall, I was not impressed with the leadership, product quality, team synergy, work environment, review system, career growth, and turf conflicts at this company and ultimately decided to leave for greener pastures. It was fine for a couple of years but in the long-term it was not a viable environment for me. You are essentially filling the role of a mercenary when working here. The engineering teams are led by the engineers who have hung around the longest while many of their former peers have left for better opportunities. The role of the engineer is to charge an hour to a Government project and the company turns around and bills that hour to the customer of which a portion ends up in the engineer's paycheck. As a result, the priority from upper management is to burn up as many hours as allowable which often comes at the expense of producing a quality product. Despite the Corporate slogans about performing with excellence, the management is more than happy with a solution that poorly meets requirements and is completed within the allotted hours rather than spending the extra time to implement it the right way. Before the hours run out on your project, be sure to start asking around where the other projects are. If you do not have a project to bill hours to, your functional manager may try to find you some makework on another project, otherwise you may consider yourself on notice. As a result, the environment is fear-driven. The employees are always concerned about what is going to happen when their project ends. The byproduct is a group of engineers of the type who are forever grateful to have a job and are therefore willing to put up with managerial nonsense that includes harassment training, charade reviews, and mock-career-discussions. The career path for engineers is short. If you do not move toward a management role, your opportunities for advancement are limited. The general perception among the Engineers is that the company does not appreciate them and views them as replaceable cogs. The attitude of the management is that of Government - if an employee quits, they will hire another one. The review system is shrouded in secrecy, mystery, and hand-waving as management is uncomfortable admitting that it is a charade and prefers to tap-dance around the issue and put on a happy face. Employees who ask too many questions about the system's fairness create the perception causing trouble. Essentially, the functional management is given a fixed quota of ratings from a limited pool that are to be doled out. The review process consists of what is internally referred to as "the rack and stack" Belle-curve where the competing managers have a sit-down and figure out who goes where on the curve. Some employees are fought for and others are compromised on. Since their quota system makes it mathematically impossible for everyone to be performing at an acceptable level, someone always has to draw the short straw and receive the poor performance review which will then be used to justify the denial of a merit increase. During the review phase, the employees are also directed to engage in a game of charades by collecting peer feedback which consists of finding your 3-4 best friends within the company and having them say some nice things about you. In some cases people were writing their own peer feedback as their colleagues found that easier rather than having to write it themselves. The worst part of the system is that it places the employees in a psychological position of competing with their team members which severely impacts team performance as everyone knows that it is in their own best interest to carve out a piece for themselves and become the go-to expert rather than threaten their own supremacy by actively helping to get others up to speed. I never saw anyone laid off as the result of a review, but certainly it could be easily spun in a negative way if your manager were directed to trim the headcount. As a result, the performance review time is always a degrading period of low morale among the staff as everyone is jockeying and trying to not be the one standing when the music goes off. There are those who benefit from the system and are quietly supportive of it. These tend to be the engineers with the most tenure or those who have managed to carve out a specialty on an important project or curry social favor with their manager. This creates a disadvantage for new engineers as the performance rating of a new engineer is compared other engineers in the same pay-grade even though the others may have been with the company for a longer period of time and therefore have an uneven advantage. Management also imposes a passive-aggressive overtime policy. They unofficially want everyone clocking an extra couple hours each week which some individuals interpret as an extra 15 minute restroom break in the morning and an extra 15 minute restroom break in the afternoon; it is impossible to police yet the cost gets passed on to the customer and the company generates additional profit while it absolves itself of all ethical liability by hanging the responsibility on the employee. Overall, I would recommend this workplace to recent college graduates who need a couple years of industry experience before finding a better work environment. Also I would recommend this to those near-retirement looking for somewhere to ride out for a few years and collect a paycheck.

Viewing 2125 - 2127 of 2,132 Reviews

Glassdoor has 16,737 Lockheed Martin reviews submitted anonymously by Lockheed Martin employees. Read employee reviews and ratings on Glassdoor to decide if Lockheed Martin is right for you.