Senior leadership pretty much all come from the same federal consulting firm and lack industry connections and experience delivering technology solutions (troubling for a tech consulting firm focused outside of public sector)
Leadership turnover is a fairly high, with some of the best leaving, the worst getting fired, and the remaining in many cases lacking the experience needed to be successful in their role.
Most employees come from public sector consulting, lower tier boutiques centered around a single technology, or straight from industry. This hodge podge of talent makes it difficult to position ourselves as a firm that can define and deliver more strategic and complex projects.
Many office practices are centered around undifferentiated capabilities (ex. project management, change management) or types of technology that often result in more staff aug or low cost SI work.
We have senior leaders that appear to do nothing more than hire and staff people in role based "projects". This model looks a lot more like a staffing firm than a consulting firm. I wonder if we could hire HR staff to do the same job and hire leaders that are capable of selling and delivering high value projects vs. selling people.
Compensation growth is low (low single digits) and career paths are pretty much non-existent. We claim to be "flat" but I see people at vastly inconsistent levels across the office, with a few that really make you scratch your head.
Franchise local model that financially disincentivizes collaboration between Slalom offices makes it challenging to service larger clients with a presence in multiple cities, scale to deliver large projects, and nearly impossible to access expertise in other markets.
