Management rules by fear and lacks any true management skills, as all promotions are internal, and a result of conforming the the backstabbing company culture.
Promotions are given based on politics rather than ability. Upper management promotes yes men that will do exactly as they're told without asking questions or giving suggestions.
Middle management gossips about employees, and uses this gossip in yearly reviews.
Pay is minimal, and pales in market comparison. The average starting salary is a shockingly low 28,000.
Upper management hoards information as a means of self importance. Because of this behavior, many helpful tools are kept from support staff, such as user websites, Microsoft Office, and laptops for employees who travel with implementation.
Turnover is high because employees are undervalued, disrespected, and treated like inmates rather than professional adults. This leads to a shared misery among employees.
Employees are never asked to review management. If they were, the company would have to face the fact that there are some serious issues at hand.
Because of the high turnover, clients rarely receive quality support, as the average employee has worked for the company less than 2 years. Having said this, employees are directed to lie about the number of years they have been with the company, and restricted from telling the client the truth.
Upper management reacts emotionally rather than rationally, and takes every opportunity to make an example out of employees to further enforce the "rule by fear" mentality.
Employees are encouraged to back stab fellow coworkers, provide gossip to management, and provide false information to clients. They are encouraged to gloss over software issues, and promise correction in a future release, in hopes that the client will forget about the problem. They are told to ask the client to enter an enhancement through the user's portal as a means to pacify the client. Any client that's been using the software for an extended period of time knows that these requests are rarely ever programmed.
Rather than patching the software to meet Meaningful Use requirements (which results in system slowness, and data loss more often than not), the company should have taken the time to efficiently restructure and get rid of the 1950s Cobol programming, and make a clean change to SQL. Instead, they left the Cobol structure as is and simply added another layer of data to achieve mandated requirements.