MITRE reviews

The company is in the middle of significant change driven by Jason directly (relatively new CEO). While Jason sometimes has the right vision, he’s unable and the wrong person to execute. Al (previous CEO), agree or disagree with him, took the company to new levels and was the kind of leader the people would follow. A simple review (or 360 evaluation) of Jason’s poor decision making history by the board should have precluded him for the position. Many have asked for board action on this site, what they need to realize is Al and Jason are buddies and Al got him the job. Al is still in the board. The board of trustees isn't a powerful board like that of a public company, the board only sees what the CEO what's them to see. Leadership typically has little vision or strategy. The few good executive leaders were frustrated by all the dead weight. The effort to reduce management levels has been of course focused on the lowest possible category of “management” (associate department heads) rather than the director and above (VPs and Officers) levels. At the same time, the number of VPs and officers has increased significantly. The only thing worse than a team of executives with no vision or strategy, is a larger team of executives with no vision and strategy. The 2018 creation of co-department heads is just the most recent hilarious example of bad management. The job of managing was already shared with the creation of “The MITRE Way” (reorg years ago), so now half of that shared leadership is further divided by equal co leadership?? I guess it's now a co-shared-matrixed leadership model (?), which will definitely ensure no one's responsible for success. Many of the good people are bailing from the company, leaving only those that can’t/won’t leave. My advice to those looking to join the company would be give it several years, my hope is this is just a temporary blemish in what is otherwise a long impressive history and a great company.

MITRE was previously a company where you could spread your wings and were rewarded for taking risks, learning new skills, and developing long-term sponsor relationships. However, the shrinking volume of impactful projects means that staff are encouraged to accept projects just for coverage, and then criticized during the review period for not making enough of an impact! End-of-year review process is a farce and PL inputs and the results of "CLEAR" conversations are not considered during laddering—it’s all about who you know. So, don't work here unless you are okay with pay below the industry average, and a glacial promotion track (unless, of course, you are a favorite). Lack of really good senior (top down) technical oversight and support within the centers, combined with non-technical middle management (especially portfolio managers), is a recipe for disaster. Plus, strange split of the work program and portfolios, means it is difficult to know who is charge or to assign accountability.