Engaged employer
Check out your Company Bowl for anonymous work chats.
Pros
They pay on time and make ethical decisions.
Cons
It is difficult to advance within the company, they are not focused on hiring from within. They are also very quick to lay employees off at the end of a project, only to restart the hiring process for another project 3 months later. I've been laid off and rehired a number of times.
Pros
Reasonably flexible schedules Exposure to competitive contracting process and networking High impact work with governments
Cons
Work/life balance is not great (lots of evenings and weekends) You are low-key expected to take on more than you're billing for The constant billing code changes and application was aggravating The sink/swim environment of finding enough billable time was a headache Working behind the scenes, it's hard to get the credit you deserve for projects Can be very clique-ish, with unfortunate 'favorites and outsiders' environment The performance evaluation process isn't as transparent as it should be Management staff need more training to more effectively manage a team
Pros
- Decent training opportunities are available for early-career staff. - Okay benefits are offered. - There are great leadership training opportunities. - They prioritize relationships with clients. - They allow a flexible schedule.
Cons
- When employees raise concerns, such as via an internally published list of questions staff wanted to ask in a recent company-wide meeting, leadership waves the concerns away, pointing to our company satisfaction survey results, and doesn't address most of our questions. They focus so much on the quantitative metrics they choose to look at and overlook qualitative expressions of concern. It feels like they value respect for the institution and the written word over respect for the individual. UPDATE on 11/13/24: One day after this review was published on Glassdoor (I wrote it on 11/10 and this review showed up on 11/12), RTI ended up internally publishing a list of responses to all of the questions asked during the company-wide meeting I mentioned, so I appreciate their transparency in that regard. However, as of today, they still haven't posted responses to the anonymously asked questions I previously mentioned. - Upper-level management relies too much on internal hires. They revamped their hiring process in an attempt to be more equitable. However, their efforts were insignificant, and they still ended up choosing internal white men for their upper-level management positions anyway because of their 'industry experience.' - Employees are pushed to prioritize client demands to the point of burnout. This is my wide impression across all my coworkers, yet more practical effort is needed to lighten loads and decrease pressure. We express this concern, and we instead are directed to take care of our mental health. The pressure is blamed on us as individual employees rather than on the culture. - Technology managers let the SAS license expire and then only informed SAS programmers of the license's expiration after the license had already expired, not giving staff enough time to switch from SAS to open-source programming languages in all of their SAS-dependent projects. This increased the pressure many of us programmers feel in our already high-pressure day-to-day work. - Each of these items decreases my sense of trust toward the company.
Pros
They pay on time and make ethical decisions.
Cons
It is difficult to advance within the company, they are not focused on hiring from within. They are also very quick to lay employees off at the end of a project, only to restart the hiring process for another project 3 months later. I've been laid off and rehired a number of times.
Pros
The culture in my program as well as my colleagues were extremely supportive, competent, knowledgeable and kind. For the most part, the work is mission driven and people care about the work they’re doing and the benefits to humanity. The work schedule is flexible and benefits are respectable (but not leading edge). Overall, I felt valued by my co-workers.
Cons
Recent layoffs due to a reduction in force revealed multiple weaknesses at the executive level. The process was largely disorganized and those tasked with executing it (primarily HR staff) were unsupportive and often lacked empathy. It felt like a bad breakup with a hostile ex. Communication from leadership implied employees being laid off were no longer valued by the RTI and were only given minimum support to navigate a very difficult and swift transition. Their Chief Human Resources Officer was conspicuously absent from layoff procedures. He and his team appear to lack basic emotional intelligence including empathy—and instead default to standardized legal language to CYA.
Pros
Take home assesment you work on and can present Let you choose statistical software
Cons
Slightly technical and have a standardized interview process
Pros
The staff are phenomenal. Good, hard working, bright, and kind folks who are passionate about the work they do. PTO, 401(k), and other benefits are stellar. Work/life balance is phenomenal.
Cons
An over reliance on federal funding and an assumption about who would win the presidential election has put them in a bad spot. Laying off more than 40% of your workforce in less than 3 months should send alarm bells RINGING to any potential new hires. The fact that they’re hiring at all is truly astounding. Why get rid of long-term strong performers with strong institutional knowledge to hire new people who don’t know the business? RTI is in trouble. If you’re still here, start looking. If you aren’t there yet, RUN.
Pros
Good people Flexibility Good people
Cons
Incompetent executive and senior leaders Funding crisis and still hiring overhead staff No accountability to address bad/toxic/bullying behavior among senior staff