The strategic merger has been mismanaged from the beginning. The transition would have been better managed had a new CEO been seated from the beginning. This would have resolved the personal investiture that some had for particular product solutions and people and allowed a new leader to look at the business holistically and make the best business decisions.
The choices related to product direction and strategy was terribly disappointing.
Little room for career paths--each person has his role and is not encouraged to add to a greater conversation. Those who question decisions are viewed as not being team players when in truth the questions were legitimate and had they been listened to, it would have fostered a climate that encouraged feedback, collaboration and shared interest in the company's success.
Employees were marginalized, not valued for experience and talent after the merger. Employee satisfaction was terrible.
The organization is terribly hierarchical. While feedback is allegedly encouraged, there was very little evidence of this as crucial business decisions were made. Long term employees and those in the field were not consulted nor were opinions respected or appreciated.
