AECOM Employee Reviews about "work environment"

Cons

The company is too large

Cons

We have good career growth

Cons

AECOM PDD in Arlington, VA otherwise known the National Capital Office (NCO) is a collection several recently acquired AE/EA firms. Having its foundation as DMJM design, there was eventually a collocation of with recently acquired Hayes, Sean, Mattern & Mattern (HSSM). Eventually there will also be a full collocation of former Ellerbe Becket as well. With a total staff of just around 350 employees mostly architects and engineers, there was the expected challenge of trying to integrate the ideas of all other cultures into one identity. This would be a huge undertaking - one that would require the right leadership and management. Unfortunately, instead of integration, management chose a more dangerous path. The 'collocation' turned into an all out clash of civilizations. Much of the management became hostile and certain leadership roles were given to favorites. Also other leadership roles were superseded (i.e. DMJM which is a far more reputable firm had its management side-stepped by that of HSMM) and there was soon another wave of aggressive politics to bring Ellerbe Becket's leadership into prominence as well. By late 2010 there were some truly ugly corporation politics. People were stabbing each other in the back left and right - anything to justify the existence of one another in the midst of a rapidly evaporating workload. Leaders who you expected to act professional were not and in one nauseating scene there was a complete unprofessional breakdown of several of the firms principals for not being invited to a client meetings. This of course happened right in front of the entire team of people who were working late - well past regular business hours. Where there was once a very outstanding group of professionals turned into a cesspool of immature, unprofessional, overzealous, self-serving scoundrels, and maybe their most occasional critic. Unsurprisingly, there were a string of promotions to some of the most woefully unqualified individuals. Clients were literally shocked when they would be introduced as 'Principals' or 'Vice-Presidents.' It gets even worse. There was a lot hiring even during the Great Recession but only of senior level personnel who were brought in with the idea they could bring in additional work. This created an extremely top-heavy organization that carried merely a handful of junior-level architects and a smattering of mid-level people. The later ones would constantly be in the line of fire when there is poor workload forecasting - if that makes any sense. A lot of very good talent was lost. Therefore, when you would spend five days in a row working around the clock towards a deadline, that person doing much of the production would instantly be treated like dirt and cast aside when that phase of the work was finished. Then to add insult to injury, that person would also get lectured on using 'way too many hours' on the project even though they were asked to do their job. So in turn, in order to justify the existence of Senior level staff that supposedly manage projects, they throw their production people under the buss constantly so that they can use of all of the project's available hours for themselves. It has become a perfectly accepted practice at AECOM and completely overlooked by management that is more than in cahoots with this ugly way of conducting business. It came to a point where I was being asked by my supposed 'Studio Manager' to lie about my hours. Unacceptable. Layoffs started around (you guessed it) Christmas Eve! Basically you already had a relatively beaten down and demoralized workforce facing the grim reality that they would be next in the line of fire. And by January 2011 about 2 or three people were getting the axe per week (it is April now and this has continued). It created an ugly political and cultural atmosphere where there was once a positive environment became a dreadful place to come to work. Everyone was on pins and needles and production took a huge hit, gossip and fear mongering became rampant, people started to step all over eachother - and of course upper management seamed only to encourage the madness as they continue to sink even further as an organization. Astonishingly some of the other organizations that AECOM views as 'competitors' (Gensler, HOK, Aedas, RTKL, SOM, etc) were hiring people.

Cons

1- As a contractor I was under paid comparing to what other companies pay in the market 2- As any corporate chances to lay off employees are available especially when it come to saving money

Cons

Fast expansion with loss of business results to termination of many staff .

Cons

Cubicles and not much field time

Cons

No cons as such..

Cons

As a contractor, it seems there are zero prospect of evolution in the support functions of the business. Too many layers of management along with very poorly implemented IT and financial systems make for a unpleasant work environment. With clusters of the same functions scattered all over the country, knowing who does what and who is responsible for what is hard. It 's been over a year and after an excruciatingly slow on-boarding, I having never been given any stimulation in my daily work.

Cons

The commercial reality of the recent merger with URS Corp. is that some positions and personnel will be made redundant. Very exciting times ahead for those that survive, understandable disappointment for those who are displaced.

Cons

The AECOM and URS merger is not going smoothly. The basic programs, procedures and tools that need to be brought together to standardize how we present ourselves and do things are being developed much too slowly. As a result, things that should be simple and easy to do take a long time. Contentious relationships between 'Legacy AECOM' and 'Legacy URS' create a 'carping' work environment with too many 'butt-hurt' former URS employees.