Pros
I read a few horrible reviews that are clearly manufactured and conspicuously written by ChatGPT, so a bit of objectivity felt needed here.
I started a little over a year before Pierre Le Manh was recruited as CEO, and at the time the place felt like chaos. New products had been launched and we were “regionalizing,” but there was no direction we could refer to, which for a marketer is the worst possible context. We were hiring people because we were told to, but without any clarity about what we should work on or build. The business had been completely stagnant, slightly declining in the most mature markets like the US and Europe, and not doing well elsewhere. Only China was performing well, but with only one product, and it was operating like a completely separate company anyway.
The quality of our products was constantly crucified on social media, meetings with chapter leaders were very hostile, the CEO had been fired by the Board, systems were not integrated and were completely antiquated, regions fought with headquarters, the product team was working in isolation, tech was not delivering on anything, and senior leaders were traveling around the world without providing any direction. All meetings were about congratulating ourselves, although it was clear that performance was terrible.
Then Pierre arrived, and initially it was a shock to the organization. In a few months, he basically replaced the entire leadership team, reorganized the company, froze recruitment, paused many new initiatives, and asked that we focus on the core. It was brutal. Then a new leadership team came in, some promoted from inside, some from outside, many with an edtech or software industry background.
What they brought, and what nobody can seriously dispute, is clarity. A clear strategy (PMI Next). A very clear vision. Some people loved it. Others did not buy into it. But at least we had something that explained decisions, and as a marketer, we had clear messages to convey.
Since then, the journey has sometimes been messy. Pierre tends to make announcements public before anybody has time to process or plan, as a way to force everyone to accelerate the pace. The bright side is that it worked. The community loves it. PMI has eclipsed all other professional organizations in project management. Some have been acquired by PMI since then.
I do not always agree with the way things are done, and I feel that sometimes we could be better organized. But the company is going in one direction, there is more accountability, and I feel I am working for a winning organization. In only three years, our image has completely transformed, and truly amazing people work here, not just because leadership has reaffirmed that we would remain fully remote.
Cons
There is still a real gap between what the ET wants and what is cascaded to the teams. Very often, we are told that we need to do things because “Pierre wants it,” or “this is what Menaka wants,” or “it’s an ET decision,” only to discover later, during a meeting with leadership, that they were not even aware of the request and actually disagreed with it. More consistent communication, and addressing some recurring issues in how certain leaders or directors communicate or frame decisions, needs to be tackled.
There is also a real imbalance in workload. I understand that being fully remote does not help address this, but there are still people who operate with a very limited sense of accountability and penalize the entire organization as a result. It can also be demoralizing to work hard to deliver on objectives and see that some people with manager titles, who have been with PMI for more than 10 years, seem to care very little about making the extra effort to help everyone succeed.
I would not say this is the majority at all. Most of the people resisting change or holding onto this mindset are gone at this point. But there are still pockets of behavior that are honestly shocking.
