MITRE reviews

- Very limited opportunities for professional growth and promotion - You will loose your competitive edge and marketability if you stay here too long - Benefits have been eroding to the point they are now average - Mediocre mid level management - the worst I have seen in my career --, incompetent higher level management. A lot of these managers keep telling you stories about their old good days at Booz or Deloitte, but now are no longer willing to work like they used to work at Booz or Deloitte, and simply "parked" at MITRE, waiting for retirement. - Stagnant salaries, not aligned with your amount of work and capabilities. The review process is a joke. There are bunch of people around who just "charge" time, but do not contribute, while you are told that the company is expensive because it spends a lot on R&D.

Years and years ago -- nearly back to its inception -- MITRE (re)defined its FFRDC role so as to focus on "attaboys" (customer approval, published praise), rather than traditional profit/loss or similar competitive measure(s). While clever (in that it dodges traditional metrics and accountability), this 'flavor' has leeched into all nooks and crannies of corporate culture, such that most internal decisions (personnel management, promotion of staff, research-program grants, valuations of individual work-programs/departments, yearly performance reviews) are subjective nearly to the point of lacking substance. The resultant office 'vibe' is very feudal (individual fiefdoms and turf-wars competing for (relatively) small stakes), and academic-graybeard (employees stay for life, and have motivations/priorities unlike that of outside industry, and move/act sloooowly), and somewhat out-of-touch (no, sir, we don't do the actual work, we advise you on _how_ it should be done). MITRE's aforementioned focus on the (intangible) "attaboy, you did a good job" has spawned many downstream consequences. Cronyism exists, due to the tenured-professor politicking referenced above, but also because, in many cases, mid/senior leadership can no longer differentiate a "good performer" from an "average [or lackluster] performer," thus those who cling closest to the boss(es) frequently receive the choicest assignments or promotions. Ambitious players are learning that, since no consistent quantitative measure of 'how much improvement' or 'how much technical quality' exists within the organization, it is possible (preferable?) to hop from project to project, dipping one's toe into each work-effort (or, worse, stealing credit) just enough to appear competent and milk customer-satisfaction, before moving on to the next stepping-stone -- in essence, salesmanship and business-development behaviors, emerging within a supposedly-not-profit-driven culture, and being disproportionately rewarded in comparison to 'traditional tech' or 'traditional management.' This cultural erosion has not gone unnoticed by outside industry. Cheaper for-profit competitors are beginning to poke at the FFRDC niche, even pointing out areas where the company "is doing [staff augmentation] work it's not supposed to do." Further, a generational void is manifesting within MITRE's ranks... young college/twenty-something hires are "still learning" (picking up early-career skills), while longtime veterans are plodding through the daily routine (and/or "just hoping they can make it another few years"), but the hot-to-advance prime-of-life Generation Xers are exiting in droves, or, tragically, never joining up in the first place. Worst of all, many MITRE-ites find themselves unemployable (due to lack of current skills and/or recent hands-on experience) when returning to the outside job market.