While not terrible, if you are on the operational side, i.e. construction, purchasing, architecture, or land development, there are probably better places to be.
MI Homes is a publicly traded company. The CEO is the son of one of the founders, and the board retains a lot of it's original influence and character. They have a lot to be proud of, and I respect them for the industry professionals that they are. Unfortunately, as the company becomes larger, this holds MI back in a couple of key respects. Generally, family-founded companies, while doing a great job in earlier times, struggle in operations and human resources as the company gets larger and larger. The management team holds on tight to original ways of doing things and the original personnel, usually for sentimental reasons. When they go public, some companies will replace those in family held senior positions to mitigate this problem. That hasn't happened with this company.
MI Homes lags in operational fortitude compared to its competitors. Operations haven't grown with the rest of the company. This lack of emphasis on operations has affected the company's profitability in the past, resulting in a weaker showing compared to other national builders. Operations are often treated as an after-thought with this company.
Loyalty is something this company seems to really value in it's employees. This is can be a bad thing. There are a lot legacy employees in upper management at this company. These are people that were with the company prior to it going public, and often were with the company during it's infancy. A lot of these early people were rewarded for their loyalty with promotions to senior positions at both the divisional and regional levels. The problem is that they weren't promoted necessarily for their management skills. One of the many examples of this: In one division, the VP of purchasing would regularly lead the weekly construction staff meetings. Not because he wanted to, had to, or even meant to. But because the VP of construction was so grossly bad at his job, the only time anything of substance was discussed or decided on was when another manager would attend. It later became clear that the VP of construction was retained not for his competence as a manager, but because the senior leadership appreciated his longstanding loyalty.
This isn't to put all legacy personnel in a bad light. For instance there are some division presidents that go back to close to the company's founding, and they clearly deserve and should be in those positions.
