Challenging environment - Anonymous employee Nava Employee Review

2.0
31 Jul 2018
Anonymous employee
Recommend
CEO approval
Business outlook

Pros

- Company is mission-focused. The idea of bringing modern technology to government and improving the social safety net for millions of people is appealing. - Work with thoughtful people who deeply care about building a diverse, inclusive team and making a positive social impact. - Nice work-from-home policy as long as you communicate and get work done.

Cons

- The day-to-day is slow and frustrating. The company has very limited decision-making on some projects, and it can be a long wait and back-and-forth to get decisions from the government stakeholders who are the real decision-makers. Decisions and priorities can change without warning, resulting in wasted time/work and lots of context-switching. - Poor work-life balance; recurring early morning meetings or late-night/Friday night code deploys were common. The company tries to encourage sustainable hours, but this is in practice impossible to meet externally imposed deadlines. Generally high-stress environment with severe risk of burnout. - The leadership team lacks requisite experience for navigating complex government relationships and processes. Employees don't always receive important information that directly affects them, or the information turns out to be incorrect. Not sure what's naivete versus willful ignorance, but left me feeling like I couldn't trust what leadership was saying.

Explore other reviews about Nava

5.0
12 Jan 2026
Recommend
CEO approval
Business outlook

Pros

Nava is invested in their people and operate with a clear direction in the uncertain landscape of government contracting.

Cons

The whole contracting industry is subject to the whims of individual administrations.

2.0
24 Apr 2026
Recommend
CEO approval
Business outlook

Pros

The company offers a competitive salary and strong benefits package, Flexible work arrangements, including remote and hybrid options, along with occasional travel opportunities that add variety to the role. Colleagues are intelligent, thoughtful, and genuinely committed to making a difference. There is a clear, shared sense of purpose around supporting individuals who rely on government assistance programs, particularly within the public health space, which lends the work a strong mission-driven foundation.

Cons

The organization struggles with fundamental operational and leadership challenges. Direct management was inconsistent and lacked the clarity, guidance, and accountability expected at this level, making it difficult to succeed and grow in the role. More broadly, there is a noticeable absence of accountability across teams, often resulting in confusion about ownership and responsibilities. Communication practices are another significant issue. An overreliance on Slack created a highly fragmented and overstimulating work environment, where critical work was buried in constant notifications and excessive back-and-forth. This was compounded by an overabundance of company-wide huddles, many of which disrupted day-to-day productivity without delivering clear value. The organization often felt structurally undefined. Roles and responsibilities weren't always clearly communicated, leaving employees frequently unclear on who has been hired or what their function is. There were several moments where I would attempt to reach out to someone via email or Slack just to find out that their access is activated and they no longer work for the company. No announcement, nothing, just awkard moments of realizing that a coworker no longer works at the company. High turnover further destabilized team cohesion. Leadership also appears to lack strategic clarity at times, particularly when it comes to differences of opinions, and establishing clear event goals and objectives, leading to inefficiencies and last-minute pivots. Cross-team collaboration, while encouraged, often resulted in misalignment and duplicated efforts rather than streamlined outcomes. Some assigned tasks felt redundant and lacked meaningful opportunities for growth or skill development. Additionally, it was difficult to schedule time with colleagues, which slowed progress and created bottlenecks on critical tasks and projects. Onboarding and role clarity are particularly weak points—receiving a formal job description more than eight months into the role reflects a broader pattern of disorganization. Overall, the company operates in a reactive mode, often “building" the plane while flying it,” which contributes to an unsustainable and at times chaotic work environment.

7
See reviews by: Helpful|Rating|Date|All