MITRE Reviews

Cons

Low level of promotion opportunities

Cons

I've been at MITRE for over 7 years, and things have changed dramatically since the Board appointed our current CEO, who most people I know do not respect nor like, which is unfortunate. It's very difficult at MITRE if you're not a systems engineer - you have to constantly prove your value and it's tough to speak their language. Additionally, it's a very horizontal organization that has a nepotistic streak in the culture, so it's quite hard to get promoted unless you have an 'in' with leadership.

Cons

In the last year and a half, a significant change has taken place. When former CEO Al Grasso left, he was replaced by Jason Providakes. Much of senior management has departed and has been replaced. Organizational structure has changed, stripping what were solid internal entities of their identity. We're hiring at a phenomenal rate of late, for what reason is beyond my comprehension. We seem to have lost the ability to say no to a sponsor who would have us do work outside our contractual work program, as well as the ability to question whether a type of work is appropriate to be done through an FFRDC. While developing answers to problems could take forever if we did a 100% solution for everything, the "60 to 80%" solution we're now to take could be very costly. This isn't who we are.

Cons

When longtime CEO Al Grasso retired, a new executive team swept in eager to make a lot of changes. Change isn't necessarily a bad thing, but so far what we've seen hasn't inspired a lot of confidence. We just went through a disgracefully poorly managed round of layoffs in corporate operations. Layoffs are never exactly fun to go through, but when done well, they can be healthy and leave the organization more efficient. Not just from a cost standpoint either: a healthy layoff gets rid of people who are slowing the organization down. But that's not clearly the case here. We really miss a lot of the people who either retired early or were shown the door, and it's harder for the organization to be effective without them. But worst of all was the feckless, drawn-out way this was all handled. A department head and even a director with 30 years' experience were laid off right along with individual contributors. Even if there's good reason to get rid of people in those positions, it's cowardly to use a RIF as a vehicle for that. Maybe that seemed neat and efficient from a labor lawyer's perspective, but consider what that does for morale: there's a Game of Thrones-like sense of dread among the staff because not only could any of us be next, but we don't even believe that we can get reliable information from middle management because they're all evidently standing on trap doors too. It effectively cuts off any way to quell rumors and move on. In a relatively strong job market like we currently have, I worry we'll lose even more of our best people who'd rather not work under the current COO. We're watching a lot of the things that made MITRE such an excellent place to work 10 years ago get eroded away.

Cons

Executive team has their head in the sand, doesn’t seem to value the long term employee who has dedicated years to towards making MITRE great. A recent RIF in Corp Ops validated just that with over the majority impacted being over the age of 45. Why hang around in today’s hot job market?

Cons

retirement match falling behind national labs and competitors (e.g., Booz Allen). Major strategic mistake to downgrade DoD/IC work (~60% of work program, 90% of demand) in favor of groveling for VA, IRS, HHS work (so 2010s!).
Staff uniformly hates corporate management; management thinks everyone loves them.

Cons

I was hoping my experience was unique to my Division but I can tell from other posts and my colleagues that my Division’s experience may be the norm rather than the exception.

A year and a half ago a power grab was started by the Portfolio (business development) side of our division. MITRE’s “Shared Leadership” model (Portfolio and Program (execution) working together) has devolved to Portfolio dictating and Program forced to jump. With the “yes” people brought in to the Portfolio this has created a toxic environment where collaboration and sharing have been replaced by whispering and looking over our shoulders. The work has deteriorated as the Portfolio is ill equipped to explain the MITRE value or understand our Sponsor’s needs but refuse to work with the Program side. Portfolio schedule Sponsor meetings without engaging with the Program side and rarely share the outcomes unless it serves their narrative to take more control. On multiple occasions my Sponsor has asked me what MITRE leadership was thinking in these meetings. A very hard question to answer.

Myself and many of my colleagues stay because we believe in our sponsor’s mission, having an impact, and remember what MITRE could be like. But every month it becomes tougher and tougher.

Cons

reduction in leave, reduction in medical benefits, reduction, reduction....

Cons

There is an increasing workforce segment that doesn't understand the FFRDC role on contrast with the role of the for-profit sector (industry and/or SETA contractor).
Pursuit of "new platforms" beyond the operation of FFRDCs to increase revenues and generate profits threatens the company's credibility, uniqueness and value...and possibly its not-for-profit tax designation.
A large segment of the workforce is troubled by executive decrees and rifts, the absence of viable strategy, poor communication, depreciating benefits, and a culture of fear that is setting-in at mid/senior management levels.
MITRE's executives have historically been loathe to layoff staff unless absolutely necessary, but the philosophy has changed.
Management and technical staff are being told to get-on-board with 'good growth' or to get-out. Some good people are opting to leave.
Former executives and board members are concerned about the implications of "good growth" and the demoralized state of the workforce.
For an increasing number, it is now an open question as to whether MITRE can still be regarded "one of the best places to work"
Statistics and comments on this site seem valid.
MITRE has internal problems that are perhaps more serious than most outsiders (and some of its current leaders) realize.
Timely intervention is needed, but probably won't happen.
Key trustees seem ignorant to the significance of the internal problems...and any calls from the government for MITRE's executives to explain what is going on...just are not likely to come any time soon.
Current trends will likely continue.

Cons

Working in a chill environment is not for everyone. Many of my coworkers who left did so for this exact reason. When 50% of your coworkers are trying to climb into management because they are not strong technically and the other 50% are slacking off because they know they can it can be a very boring place to work.

I would recommend this company to my friends who may not be good at, nor enjoy, software engineering and just want to chill and do nothing.