Pros
- If you have a supportive staff manager and have built up a strong reputation for your work product, you are given project management opportunities and freedom to delve into business development. - You can get support for professional development opportunities and conference attendance, but you need to show a consistent track record of success; otherwise, you're turned down. - Potential for international work if you're not in IDG. - On-campus cafeteria, walking paths, intramural sports teams, and gym are nice amenities if you use them. - Some incredibly smart people work here and some will actually donate their personal time for mentoring. - It's easy to get settled in and stay forever; hence the reason there are so many people that have been here 10+ years. - The PDAs and IR&Ds are a great way to reinvest in employees and increase collaboration. - There are some fantastic staff managers (and some not so fantastic, but at least smart managers). - The salaries and benefits are ok, less salary than for profit companies, but am assuming we get better benefits and 403(b) contributions. - Access to e-journals (e.g., ScienceDirect) facilitates professional development and learning.
Cons
- There is a clear distinction between PhDs, those with Masters, and those with Bachelors. While I think this is justified when it comes to your area of expertise, but it shouldn't be a limiting factor for upward mobility and idea-sharing. I've been talked down to too many times presumably because I'm a young female or because I don't have a PhD and therefore my ideas aren't worth the same consideration. - You can get stuck doing the same repetitive tasks and projects for years and years because it's easier to keep someone in one place than to work a little bit to transfer knowledge. - Very little racial diversity. - Sexism is present, but not prevalent, across all units, particularly in the labs/scientific research fields and when choosing among the potential project management candidates. - My particular unit is too heavy on government work (~80% gov) and despite the push for more commercial work the past 5+ years, we've made little progress in diversifying. - Very top heavy in some groups because staff will stay here for decades. This can be taken as "what a great place to work" or that the work's easy enough to stay doing the same thing for years. Staff can end up with less competitive work experience compared to companies that are more involved in commercial, innovative, and cutting-edge work. - It can be quite antisocial depending on where you sit or where your home office is (i.e., all those not on the main RTP campus). - The financial hierarchy discourages collaboration between groups within the same unit and definitely does not lead to any cross-unit collaboration. In fact, because of the FY2013 sequester, I have seen many groups hoard work and staff projects based on immediate group availability rather than expertise. - Not much time spend on work plans or career development. If you don't like what you're currently doing, you really have to hustle to get on other projects, especially if the contracts you want to get on are coming out of different groups. - RTI is primarily focused on their non-management staff staying sold and making a profit despite their non-profit status. We are not a philanthropic organization and very little money flows into things that could actually "improve the human condition". We will improve the human condition, but only if someone pays us. RTI is an expensive organization to work with and I haven't been able to fully understand the reasons why, but it's frustrating to lose projects due to cost again and again despite all the efforts taken to reduce costs by underbidding the experts.