ACA Compliance Group reviews

TLDR: If you’re a candidate that’s considering working for ACA and not sure whether to take the plunge, I’d advise that you don’t just take my word for it but also spend some time reading the staggering number of other poor reviews on Glassdoor and other employer review sites (and try to find the good ones before they’re deleted!). By the way, in an effort to stem the downward ratings trend, ACA management tried asking their pet junior employees for good Glassdoor reviews and implying that good things would happen for them if they gave a positive review. Hopefully these employees recognize that the line they were fed was just another carrot being dangled. Hopefully they’ll learn that ACA doesn’t deserve their hard work, late hours, and time away from their family and friends. Hopefully smart candidates will tell ACA ‘thanks but no thanks” and hopefully the employees there that have been consistently manipulated and overlooked will stop squandering their talent and mental/emotional energy for this company. The single most important thing to know before accepting a job at ACA is that there is an overly broad (and most likely unenforceable) non-compete agreement to which all (or most) employees are subject. The non-compete prohibits employees from working for other competitors for one year following employment. ACA claims this is because of all the regulatory knowledge you will learn from them as if they instantly download it into your brain upon date of hire. The reality is that the training they give you is the bare minimum and the way you’ll learn is through your own experience over time working with clients and having to find the answers to questions that your supervisors won't have. However long or brief your tenure is at ACA you can also expect: - Dramatically under-market compensation and benefits (particularly if employed in Pittsburgh) - Abundantly tone-deaf, duplicitous, and condescending leadership at every level from your immediate supervisor to the C-suite - A one-size fits all leadership/development model. In order to get ahead you have to play politics. - Career development is defined as taking a series of internal exams (half of which are out-dated or inaccurate) on your own time for the hope of one day becoming a mid-level consultant. No development paths for Senior Principal Consultant or above currently exist. - Favoritism is the first consideration for advancement. If you’re extroverted and well-liked by management you will advance. If you are introverted and have a different leadership style than the one prescribed, you will not. Bonus points for passing down as many responsibilities as possible to junior staff who aren’t adequately trained or compensated for such responsibility. - Poor behavior from management is either ignored or rewarded. - Leadership habitually gaslights under-paid junior employees implying promotions, raises, or higher bonuses in return for leading poorly-scoped projects with minimal resources for clients with unrealistic expectations. - Operational nightmare of spreadsheets, an antiquated time tracking system, and no technology to leverage for important metrics like staffing, pricing, billing, and revenue projection. - Sales is rewarded for lying to clients and has no accountability for these lies forcing execution teams to either walk back client expectations, work around the clock, or adapt to a terrible service offering (i.e. low margins, operationally unsustainable, inefficient, and disastrous implementation). - Increasing number of operational tasks are passed down to account owners (i.e. anyone assigned to manage a client project/engagement) without any downward adjustment of utilization expectations to compensate. Guidance from management is to “work more hours to adjust.” - COVID response was the “ACA Cost Savings Plan” which terminated employees (aka their “best assets”) and cut salaries across the board. - Utilization rate expectations are unrealistic and mandated by people in leadership who are not subject to these metrics and have no practical understanding of how they work. To provide some historical context, ACA has been going downhill for some time but it became especially obvious in early 2020. Prior to the pandemic, the larger problems were spurred from fast-tracked growth that wasn’t supported by sufficient operational or technological infrastructure. ACA has a track record for aggressive growth by acquisition. The most significant of which was in 2018-2019 ACA acquired one of its few competing firms, Cordium. The under-market compensation and benefits, terrible work-life balance, and overly broad non-compete were still issues before the Cordium acquisition, but morale was higher, there were more opportunities for growth, and team-building and development were prioritized. After the Cordium acquisition there was a dramatic decline in morale, quality of work, and work-life balance. When the pandemic began, the company laid off a significant number of employees (some of whom had been with ACA for a decade or longer). Management chose to roll that decision out as part of a broader initiative which they cheekily named the “ACA Cost Savings Plan”. In addition to terminating employees, this plan also implemented pay cuts across the board (junior employees got 10%, senior employees got 20%) and looked to eliminate costs from third parties. Aside from the fact that compensation is already dramatically below market, the language they used in delivering this messaging was insensitive, demeaning, and tone-deaf. Considering the company’s claims that their employees are their “greatest assets” this was a poor choice of words and makes it obvious that they think the exact opposite: that ACA regards all employees (no matter their dedication, their accomplishments, or their knowledge) as disposable. After this plan was executed, employees were told that the only metric by which they would be evaluated would be utilization rate which is the percentage of time spent on billable client work versus non-billable work (i.e. management, HR/administrative duties, training, etc.) and going forward, utilization would be calculated on a weekly basis (it was previously on a monthly basis). However, they failed to give any guidance or expectations as to what realistic utilization should be until about 6 months later. The only guidance given by leadership was “as close to 100 as possible” which is highly unrealistic especially given all of the useless and non-billable meetings scheduled (typically by managers who have less of a utilization burden). True leaders would have taken a pay cut from the top before imposing it upon junior level employees (who are underpaid under normal circumstances) and then on top of that were mandated to meet unrealistic utilization expectations (i.e. working around the clock for fear of being terminated). Aside from the COVID response, there are other systematic issues within the company. First, there is a certain elitist attitude within ACA comparing offices and employee types to one another. For example, most senior consultants, sales team members, and partners look down on the operations staff. They are routinely under-paid and overlooked for promotions but, like analysts, are expected to work around the clock. As another example, ACA management and most senior consultants and directors regard everyone in the Pittsburgh office as second-class citizens as compared to other offices. And nowhere is this more evident than in the pay scale. Pittsburgh employees are paid dramatically less than employees in other cities. The Pittsburgh office, formerly known as the Analysis and Review Center (the ARC) is regarded by the entire company (and perpetuated by partners, the C-suite, and even clients) as a compliance sweatshop with the expectation that analysts and junior consultants are available to clients’ every beck and call (that is, the important “big fish” clients that either pay ACA) including nights and weekends. The entire business model for the ARC was to be focused on work that can be done “offsite” (i.e. not charging clients thousands for travel costs for work that could easily be done remotely…. much like all of the consulting work has been done over the past year). In the early days, the ARC was sold to clients as “a center of excellence”; that analysts and consultants specialize in the service for which the client is engaging ACA. In the last year, ACA did a reverse-course and instead tried to turn all entry level analysts into “Jacks of all Trades” rotating them through different projects too quickly for them to develop any understanding of the processes - never mind the relevant subject matter, regulatory requirements, industry best practices, or the general logic behind the workflow. The current emphasis is now on “Managed Services”, which is an allegory for “dumb down the work so that anyone can do anything.” Because why pay smart, hard-working people what they’re worth when you can just water down the intricately complex principles of compliance to check-the-box exercises that a high-schooler could do? Furthermore, there are no expectations of accountability (or ethical behavior) from the sales team. Sales regularly and blatantly lies to clients saying whatever comes to mind just to get a signed contract. Most may see this as typical sales behavior in any given industry, but when the product you’re selling is regulatory compliance and you’re regularly preaching “best practices” to clients, there should probably be some ethical guidelines (or at least more than none). This behavior is not only inconsiderate of the execution teams (who should be sales’ teammates rather than adversaries), but also directly contributes to poor work-life balance and work quality by over-extending employees. At the end of the day, sales is going to sell, but management makes no effort to regulate them. Bottom line: execution teams are expected to be complicit with these lies and get the work done no matter how much time it takes, how unrealistic the expectations, or how scarce the resources. If you dare to complain or heaven forbid, set boundaries, then you’re a bad team-player and your performance is negatively affected. Finally, and most importantly, the culture of management is tone-deaf and ignorant at best and toxic at worst. The best example that comes to mind is this: when communicating to the company about restoring full compensation (post-Cost Savings Plan), the CEO and CFO decided it was appropriate to do a little “will they or won’t they” skit on the company town hall. While most employees just trying to pay their bills waited on baited breath, these two members of the C-suite thought it would be funny to play games with the emotions of their audience… you know, their “best assets.” As another example, a senior manager who consistently bullies and manipulates employees, communicates poorly, brags about their compensation, and blatantly plays favorites has not only acted with impunity but has been promoted consistently year after year. Best case scenario: poor behavior from management is ignored. Worst case: it’s rewarded.