Pros
So I'm currently in my fourth year of working for Hanover (in research) and have been following Glassdoor reviews for a while ... I've grown so annoyed with the inaccuracies in these reviews that I feel compelled to post a defense of Hanover. It's not a perfect company but it's way way better than the negative reviews suggest. (Also I can only speak to the research side of things, as I haven't spent time in sales.) The only legitimate complaints are: (1) salaries are a bit low (2) there can occasionally be tight deadlines on projects, which can lead to lower quality (3) projects within certain company divisions can be repetitive (4) the executive team is a bit disconnected, too focused on sales, etc. On (1), yes, starting salaries are a bit low, but promotions are plentiful; I make 25% more than when I started, and this is staying within the research track. CDs often have a pay jump of 30%-50% upon promotion, and CD salaries in general (especially in MIC) are very competitive for the DC area. Plus the benefits at Hanover are legitimately impressive; health insurance and 401k are good (though not great), and the PTO is amazing. You start with 18 days of PTO per year and it goes up a day each year, along with 12 paid holidays ... at this point I have 34 workdays off per year, which is seriously at like European levels. (2) The idea that product quality is extremely low is simply absurd. Many of the project types (especially those assigned to new researchers) are very straightforward; a client wants a program demand so we grab the data from IPEDS, and boom, there you go; the client is happy, product quality is literally perfect as long as the Hanover employee was able to correctly use a database. But generally speaking, yes, there's a fair amount of secondary research (using Google is basically required for this). The whole point of Hanover's business model is that it's a relatively low-cost option for custom research, an alternative to the Advisory Board Company or an internal hire; so of course the clients aren't expecting 100-page best practices reports that answer every question perfectly. Yes, not every report is going to be infinitely high quality, but the clients are very well aware, as this is literally Hanover's business model; target middle-market clients and offer them a low-cost custom research option (we're now targeting some higher-end clients, but this was basically the model until recent months). Also, from a researcher perspective, I mean, cry me a river; you have to finish projects on somewhat tight deadlines, sometimes. Welcome to reality. If it's taking you 70 hours a week to finish your entry-level research projects (as one of the reviewers claimed) then honestly I'm worried about your future at any job; the projects they give to new employees are not difficult for any intelligent adult. I don't mean to be insulting, but seriously, it's not rocket science. It makes me wonder if maybe some of the 24-year-olds writing these negative reviews just aren't cut out to do research for a living? Or were shocked to find that actual employment is more difficult than their senior year of college? Maybe! On (3): projects are repetitive when you first start at Hanover because management is trying to help you out by assigning easy, similar projects. After a year or two, you're either a CD or doing varied interesting work (I do different projects all the time). But I guess starting new researchers with simple, repetitive work because they're still learning the ropes makes Hanover the worst company ever. On (4), sure, there was perhaps a slightly excessive sales focus a while; the company is now (quite rightly) focusing on product quality and developing deeper client relationships, so, there you go. Judging from some of these reviews, you would think that Hanover only hires naive 22-year-olds; however, this is not the case. The quant team has plenty of experts in statistical analysis; the consultants on the grants team (average age = 40) have expertise and have written successful grant proposals for billions of dollars combined. I wonder if the people writing these negative reviews just didn't stay at Hanover long enough to work with senior researchers? The average employee has worked at Hanover for 2-3 years, which is pretty normal for a company with a relatively younger workforce (i.e., people in their 20s who switch jobs constantly) based in Washington D.C. (i.e., the home of transient graduate students). Most of the people that I know who have quit Hanover were either going back to get their Ph.D or found another job. Hanover also has more promotions and more opportunities for advancement than any place I've ever worked at or even heard of. Performance reviews and firing/promotion decisions are absurdly transparent; I've never received so much detailed feedback about why I was or was not given a promotion or a raise. In short, Hanover is a perfectly fine place to work, and is easily my favorite workplace out of the 4-5 jobs I've had in the DC area.
Cons
[See above for more details]
