Pros
There are maybe 5 good people left.
Cons
Everything. Training is trial by fire - with no consistency in the internal processes and the overwhelming amount of work you will be lightly introduced to a topic and be expected to perform it from then on. Jeff is not a competent business leader. While he has strengths in the consulting world he is limited outside of his realm of comfort. He struggles making business decisions that can benefit the long term progression of the company and is unwilling to course correct when things break down outside of an annual company reorganization that lasts 6 months at best. He flatly not a good business manager and the firm would benefit more by bringing in outside resources to lead the company. Management is piss-poor. There is no management training and company leaders will lead their teams independently and inconsistently across the firm. This coupled with no one possessing strong management skills leads towards dysfunctional branches all struggling to keep up. There is no valuation for the employees time or resources so when managers will cancel internal meetings/postpone them suddenly, will assign a task with no instruction, or condescend to employees when the work becomes overbearing, the workforce’s mentality, motivation, and work product suffers. The firm thrives on burnout culture. The regular case is to get everything they can out of an employee as quickly as possible with no mutual benefit, hope they leave, or push them out for the next sack of meat to inch them forward. The job may be advertised as a 40-45 hour a week job until you start, but once in the door a regular expectation of 50+ (more at higher levels) is held. This is especially backed by the firm bringing in too much work that the workforce can not keep up with and will be in a vicious cycle of falling behind, pivot, emergency comes up, repeat. Don’t question systems, decisions, or method. God forbid you gain notion that you hold a progressive mindset for the work you produce or as leadership would prefer calling it “becoming a nuisance.” Company leaders love to fall back on the phrase “it’s just consulting” to defend their poor practices, neglecting the original intent of the company to serve as a firm that is different both to its clients and employees. Once you question something, even if it is from a curious perspective, or think independently, start updating your resume because they will hope you resign or work to push you out. They only want faceless drones to put their heads down and work between their narrow assignments at this point. There is no defined career path or established progression for one’s salary. While they have job descriptions that have never been utilized or adhered to, everyone regardless of position does everything. Title is meaningless and pay becomes something that appears to be based off age and gender - risky for a firm that practices HR, isn’t it? Younger employees are going to make less despite experience and the women in the firm consistently make notably less despite being used in the same capacity, or more often more than their male counterparts; when leveraging employees with similarly applicable levels of past experience, using their names on contract bids to win business, and have them performing basically the same work why would there be a $30,000 plus difference in their salary? Other than the consistent and abusive practice of holding women in lower positions.