Pros
Salary and interesting projects to work on. Also Bill Bula hasn't been CEO since he passed in 2018. It's Laura Serebin
Cons
The Madison office is the firm’s base of operations, so most of what I’m describing applies there, as the satellite offices tend to have their own cultures.
If you are hardworking, you will go far here—but be mindful of how much you’re willing to give for your compensation and work-life balance. Hard work and strong performance are often rewarded with more work rather than meaningful recognition. Compensation is good, and the projects are interesting, which are definite positives.
That said, the firm is in a strange transitional phase. Leadership is trying to move things in a new direction, but many employees who have been there 10+ years resist change. There are too many long-tenured employees holding things back and creating issues. Because the culture is very relaxed, it’s easy to get comfortable and complacent. PTO is informal (you just block it on your calendar), and people come and go with flexible hours. Management attempted to enforce mandatory Tuesday–Thursday in-office days, but this rule is rarely taken seriously and frequently ignored.
There’s a wide gap in performance across staff. There are many strong employees, but also a noticeable number of underperformers who drag down projects and morale. Because leadership is reluctant to hold people accountable, there are rarely consequences. This affects the work culture: it’s often obvious who isn’t pulling their weight, yet those individuals remain employed indefinitely.
Mentorship is becoming a growing problem. There’s a looming imbalance between senior associates who are on their way out and a large group of junior employees, with very few in the middle. There’s no clear or effective mentorship structure, and no visible succession plan. What even is the succession plan?
The firm culture is extremely flat—sometimes to a fault. There’s little sense of hierarchy or order. Everyone wants a say in everything, and people often take direction from PMs or PAs too personally. Too many individuals think they know better when they don’t, and enjoy hearing themselves talk more than collaborating productively.
HR often boasts about the firm’s pride in its drawings and standards, but in reality there is no true, consistent standard, and drawing quality has declined over the years. Employees are quick to blame teams for communication issues, yet when teams do raise concerns, they’re either taken personally or ignored.
Staffing is another major issue. The firm is more opaque about staffing and availability than any competitor I’ve seen, and it actively hurts team and project performance. Some managers misrepresent employee availability so they can hold onto people for their own projects. Staffing is controlled through administrative staff and PM check-ins, but there’s little honesty or transparency. Projects suffer as a result.
From a high-level perspective, there are real positives: strong projects, good clients, decent compensation, and a relaxed culture that can be appealing. However, the negatives currently outweigh the good. The firm would benefit from a serious cultural and organizational reset