Pros
Loyal staff who remain despite the negative actions of senior management. Talented senior staff with many years of experience in government offering back to government their discernment and insight into the challenging issues faced by government. Until recent years, LMI was led by retired Generals or Admirals who understood leadership and how to motivate people; who shared risk, reward, and sacrifice faced by others; who maintained a relatively flat organization where even junior staff had an office comparable to managers and titles were not important.
Cons
Senior managers, led by the current CEO, who are trying to make LMI in the image of a smaller Booz Allen or Deloitte. Unfortunately with a smaller direct-charge base, LMI cannot spread its overhead costs across as broad a workforce, and so cannot compete effectively on a “low cost” basis, even as it adopts that as a business strategy and loses experienced talent from “grey hairs” that the CEO has said do not have a future at LMI. A recent move resulted in non-managers losing their offices and being assigned to cubicles. Adding insult to injury, staff were told that compensation would be reduced by 5% because of the need for “belt-tightening.” Yet, while staff are seeing compensation drop by $5,000 or $10,000 per year, documents show that the CEO has seen his compensation sky-rocket, receiving over $1.0 million in annual bonus on top of a salary of about $500,000. As the current senior consultants leave, it will become increasingly difficult to attract top level talent with government managerial experience to replace them. As an added note, there has been considerable grumbling about the move into a new "open work place" configuration -- on the same day that the Washington Post ran an article saying open work space (like we now have) leads to lower productivity, higher stress, and less employee satisfaction. Yet one Director told staff that "management is taking names" of those who complain. .