The small size of the picture helps mask any issues. Is that the final size for publication?
The only thing that looks odd to me is the fact that everybody in the back is so much taller than the people in the front. Either that or they’re floating in mid-air.
Yup - a blessing and a curse.
There are some tall people in the back, for sure - but also, the original photo was taken with a telephoto lens, looking down from the roof of our office, so there’s a bit of an odd top-down perspective that affords more visibility for the people in the back row.
It also makes it a bit of a bitch to try to set up new photos of individuals to be composited in. The two highest heads are in the photo are as in the original - I tried to use their heights as a guideline for putting the others in there.
9 removed and 5 added? Jeez, given that it looks pretty damned good. Is there any reason not to take a new group photo? Or are you limited to doing that once every 5 years or something.
Also, just be glad that you don’t have to remove people off of actual film images.
Some subtle esthetic issues:
It could use a little more contrast. If the shadows were a little darker the overall image would have more dimension.
Some of the flesh tones don’t look realistic . . . some of them are just too pink.
Some of the clothing colors could be a little more saturated.
Hard to tell at this size, but you might want to sharpen the image somewhat.
The older guy about 1/3 of the way in on the right, surrounded mostly by women (there’s one guy over his shoulder, but the rest are gals), with the black jacket and light blue shirt? Yeah, him. It looks to me like his eyes are closed too. But, as with green lady, fixing it might just make it worse. Or maybe he’s just a lot like Michael Caine and that’s how his eyes just are.
Lucky for you, Transistor Rhythm - since that’s Larry’s team, you just might get pink pants girl’s number.
I think the pic is fine… for the Lilliput Herald. 
Seriously, why so small? The closed eyes take up about 1 pixel each on my screen - they could be a job lot of shop dummies and I’d be none the wiser!
That said, it looks like a fine Photoshop job - I just wish I could actually see it properly!
The two things I noticed were that people’s hair looked funny and sliced off where I’m assuming other people were cropped out, and that a few people looked PhotoShopped in…standing a bit too close to others.
I think the size makes sense, in context. Key staff that the most direct contact with clients have full portraits* and biographical information, in various places. This is just sort of an illustration of the size and diversity of the company.
I just wish that the working files were bigger.
*I’m also responsible for prettying up the photos and putting them in those cheesy “Polaroid” frames. Some day when I have some time, I’ll fix all of those; they have a sort of moiré effect from the texture of the “Polaroid” paper, which did not reduce well. Nobody has commented on it, but it bugs the crap outta me. Ah well, that’s what you get when you have an unreasonable deadline to work to. 
Oh, yeah. In context it looks absolutely fine. Great, even. No one’s gonna bat an eye.
Offtopic: I never knew Afrikaans is derived from Dutch! I thought it was a regional African dialect.
I’d be ticked at Pink Pants Girl, though. Everyone else must have got the ‘wear black or grey’ memo. 
Not a problem with Photoshop, wanton acts of self expression can be excised from the corporate environment.
Just take a new damn picture >:]
Hold on, did no one notice that on the front in the right, there appears to be a phantom shoe? Or am I just going crazy?
HA! It’s the way that lady’s standing and the way it makes her skirt and boots look.
The only thing that jumps out as wrong to me is the fifth person from the left in the back row with the short reddish. She (?) isn’t the right color, color saturation-wise, compared to the rest of the group.