Pros
You'll work with some of the brightest, most motivated development professionals in the industry, get exposed to some of the most challenging and complex development challenges, and have the opportunity to learn USAID contract management at a higher standard than anywhere else in the industry. Chemonics has a well-deserved reputation for being able to manage the largest, most challenging, and sometimes riskiest USAID contracts, and you'll be hard-pressed to get that experience elsewhere. For mid-level managers in particular you will be exposed to things that you'd never get to do in other organizations, from starting up $50 million contracts to the more mundane editing of your contracts final report to serving as acting chief of party to having the responsibility for representing Chemonics on new business assignments. It can be a heavy burden, and a challenge, and a lot of work, but I guarantee that you'll look back on those experiences with pride and if you do move on to other organizations realize that you've gained more experience than many of your new supervisors. Finally: great benefits. Seriously, the monetary value of the company's medical insurance, employee stock ownership plan, and other benefits is on par with the top tier of public-sector consulting firms. There have been complaints over lowish salaries but when these benefits are taken into account Chemonics is definitely one of the better companies to work for.
Cons
Take the "long hours" comments with a grain of salt. Many Chemonics staff haven't worked at other organizations and don't realize that 10-12 hour days a few times a week is absolutely normal. That said, some managers and directors have learned to game the system and pass off work to more junior staff - and there are definitely cases where staff have consistently worked 12-16 hour days, but it's relatively rare. One of Chemonics' biggest challenges is also part of the reason for its success - the 3-tier project management unit. This consists of a project director at the top, mid-level manager As and Bs in the middle, and entry-level associate As and Bs at the bottom. Directors and managers have a very high level of influence over the professional development and advancement of those that report to them. Usually this isn't an issue. Sometimes it is disastrous, and there are several directors and managers around have (rightfully) earned reputations for passing off work and blame to their subordinates. In the grand scheme of things this isn't much an issue, though, and you'd be unlucky to find yourself caught up in that kind of situation. Chemonics has focused a lot on developing processes and systems to manage projects. It is ISO 90001 certified and takes that certification very seriously. There are some positives there, but on the downside it has led to overreliance on process-driven thinking, unnecessary red tape and bureaucracy, and a lack of clear, creative, strategic thinking. Chemonics manages large, complex, development projects, and some staff lean far too heavily on the established processes rather than thinking through solutions and improvements to those processes. Between project management responsibilities and new business it is very challenging to do technical work. You have to be thoughtful and strategic, and it is possible, but it is difficult. Maternity and parental leave needs to be strengthened. It's not out of line with what Any Other Company is doing - but that's the point. Chemonics has an issue with losing some of its strongest female leaders just as they hit their stride - which so often coincides with motherhood - because the work is typically seen as an "all-in" deal. There are exceptions to the rule but no strategic approach to ensuring that the very significant gender disparity in senior management is addressed. At the Associate and Manager levels the ratio is 3 women to 2 men or more. At the director level that ratio more than reverses. And at the SVP and executive officer level there are just a few roles occupied by women. Finally, there's a strong disconnect for many home office staff who complete field assignments - particularly long-term assignments - and then return to the home office. In many cases that work is barely recognized (if at all) and certainly doesn't seem to accelerate their career advancement. The company's home office is stacked with people who have limited or no on-the-ground experience in international development, with a relative sprinkling of staff who do, yet the company doesn't seem very focused on retaining staff who serve 2-3 years overseas.
