A shell of it's formal self, resting on the laurels of the past
Pros
The NASA brand is recognized worldwide. The agency has a great PR machine that advertises the work being done. People will stop you and thank you for what you're doing. Outreach through NASA is fun and rewarding because it ignites the imagination of explorers of all demographics. Lots of development programs and still some good engineers and leaders present that want to mentor and help their employees grow. If you just want to do research and don't mind not having a clear path to have your research turn into technologies that could be incorporated on missions, it's a good place to explore your ideas. NASA is still the leader in driving the direction of the aerospace industry (though that seems to be shifting lately). As an employee you'll have the opportunity to see what's going on across the agency and in industry. Work life balance can be reasonable. Some members of senior management are waking up to the systemic problems and trying to change for the better.
Cons
The can-do attitude of the past is waning. People are afraid to take risks. Major programs that are failing are taking funding away from the technological investments that are needed to take us further into the solar system or advance scientific discovery. No one wants to stand up and say that the programs are failing because they're afraid of upsetting congressional constituents. NASA is a bait and switch. Advertisements and recruiting info say NASA is doing all these incredible missions and technology development. What they really should say is NASA is buying these incredible missions and technology development. This works for some people. If you're ok with exploring concepts that likely will never go beyond concept stage, work at NASA. If you're ok with writing requirements and then watching prime contractors do the design and development work from the periphery, work at NASA. If you want to contribute your own ideas, see them come to life and fly in space, don't work at NASA. Those opportunities are sparse if not non existent. So much inertia in the very aged workforce that most efforts to do things differently and more efficiently will likely be squashed or the people trying to do things better will get burnt out and leave. There is no incentive for dealing with poor performers. If you're in a PR, outreach, administrative or oversight role, morale is great. If you're in a technical position, morale is not as great.
