CNA Corporation reviews

I’m surprised by several of the more negative reviews posted here. I’ve been employed in research at CNA for 20 years and have, for the most part, found it a great place to work. And I’m not alone in this; the company has long had low turnover and is noted for its collegial environment. I imagine, however, that people’s experiences depend a on both the type of work they do (very roughly, the staff can be divided into support, research, and management) and the part of the organization in which they work. With that said, however, I believe one can make several generalities about working in research at CNA. 1) It’s an unusual and interesting organization. The corporation is a private, not-for-profit that has the Navy and Marine Corps as major clients. These services have relied on CNA for analytic support for more than 75 years and there is no sign that this relationship is changing in the foreseeable future. The part of the company that is most involved with supporting the military is the “Center for Naval Analyses” (from which the larger corporation takes its acronym). The other principal component of the corporation is the “Institute for Public Research,” which is largely involved with non-military clients. (I’ve spent most of my time at CNA within the Center for Naval Analyses, so my comments will focus on that part of the corporation.) 2) A substantial majority of our research hires are newly minted PhDs from top graduate programs. The company hires top notch young analysts and invests heavily in them. The investment is particularly great because it can take several years for new employees to become familiar with the institutional aspects of the military. New researchers are generally assigned to studies that permit them to simultaneously learn what the Navy and Marine Corps are all about and to demonstrate their analytical “chops.” Many analysts learn about the military through the “field program” or participating in exercises, both of which are a great deal of fun (analysts are sent to various parts of the world, for either short-term or longer-term work at different military commands). 3) After having invested heavily in its analysts, CNA works hard to retain its people. Salaries are more than competitive and benefits are very good (in the past, the benefits had been ridiculously good, but there has been a bit of belt tightening in recent years). As a general rule, there is little turnover among analyst once they reach six years of employment. At this point in their careers, researchers have generally concluded that they enjoy the type of work the organization does, and the organization has concluded that the analysts can pull their weight. Among the few who reach the six-year mark and who subsequently leave CNA, the great majority continue to work in the defense field (they may leave for RAND, the Office of the Secretary of Defense, or similar places). 4) Even in cases in which there is not a good match between the organization and the analyst, employees are generally given a good deal of time to “work things out” -- to either transition out of the company in an agreeable manner or to improve their performance. Until 2013, it was almost unheard of for employees to leave CNA without having first lined up other work. In 2013, however, sequestration took management by surprise (it took almost everyone by surprise). In order to retain its strong financial health -- and the company is quite healthy -- CNA undertook a reduction in force (RIF) of about 5 percent of its work force. This was out of character for CNA: it had been a quarter century since the company had undertaken company-wide reductions. 5) The Center specializes in working complex problems. Typically, clients face hard issues that are difficult to articulate and that require a good deal of careful analysis before tractable solutions can be found. In fact, if a problem has an easy and obvious solution, we are precluded by our contract with the military from working the issue (as a “federally funded research development center,” we can’t take this sort of work). In my 20 years, almost all of my studies have been at least pretty interesting… the majority have been *very* interesting. 6) We work with excellent clients and our analyses often result in important changes in policy. I had had little contact with the military before coming to CNA and have been very impressed with the service leadership with whom I’ve worked. Almost without exception, they are very bright and they care deeply about our studies (largely because we often work the most important topics in their areas of responsibility). It is a real thrill to pursue an analysis for many months, present policy recommendations to the highest leadership in the service (or in the Department of Defense), and to have leadership act favorably on these recommendations. 7) Analysts have the opportunity to build long-term client relations, but they are not entirely dependent on these relationships. Most analysts who have been at CNA for an extended time develop long-term relationships and bring in business from particular clients. However, unlike other similar organizations, analysts are not entirely dependent on the productivity of these relationships. Many senior researchers work on projects brought into CNA by others. The company recognizes that some of its research staff members excel at business development, others excel at research, and still others excel at research administration. The company accommodates all three types. 8) The Center has great data to support analysis and many highly capable programmers who assist in making these data accessible. A central element in the Center’s relationship with the services is that we gather, clean, and archive much of their administrative data. The Center maintains many detailed, long-term longitudinal data sets on readiness, ship and aircraft operations, personnel, systems maintenance, and many other topics. These data can support a wide range of rigorous empirical analyses. 9) There is a great deal of diversity among CNA employees. Not only does the company do well in the promotion of women and minorities, but there is also a great deal of diversity in employees’ political views. (Yes, there are many liberals here who care deeply about issues of national security.) I believe that our gay colleagues feel at home here; certainly, any sort of homophobia would be completely unacceptable to the company’s management and employees. The only dimension in which there is little diversity is in national origin: employees must be able to secure security clearances and this means that the Center for Naval Analyses hires exclusively US citizens (this policy may be different in the Institute for Public Research, I’m not sure).