Leadership communication lacks transparency, particularly around decisions that materially impact employees. For example, the shift to unlimited PTO was positioned as a benefit aligned with industry standards, while downplaying the more meaningful financial implication that PTO accrual payouts were eliminated. That kind of decision would have been better received with straightforward, honest context about economic pressures.
The consultant feedback process is also flawed. While there have been multiple attempts to improve it (SBIC templates, start/stop, incremental check ins), peer feedback trends overwhelmingly positive and often does not reflect actual performance. This creates challenges for staffing decisions and limits meaningful professional growth.
There also appears to be a lack of alignment at the executive level. Decisions often feel consensus-driven rather than structured and decisive, which impacts clarity of direction.
There is also a recurring disconnect between what is sold and what can actually be delivered. The MC practice and SI are routinely not aligned on scope, feasibility, or level of effort. This creates avoidable friction once delivery begins, puts unnecessary pressure on project teams, and can erode client trust when expectations have to be reset mid-engagement. On one project, it was hard to hear our client share that, "You guys need to fix the problem you created!"
Trust in leadership is an issue. Many employees question whether leadership can scale the company effectively, and there is a growing perception that the firm is drifting toward a staff augmentation model rather than differentiated or "boutique" consulting.
