Toxic leadership and silencing of employees
Pros
Well-known organisation with strong public visibility and access to donor networks.
Cons
Employees who try to speak up or raise genuine concerns are made to feel guilty, isolated, and unsafe. Instead of resolving issues transparently, narratives are quietly built against individuals. Colleagues are influenced, selective “evidence” is created, and people are eventually pushed out, creating a culture of fear and silence. HR does not operate as an independent or protective function. Informal conversations and internal politics are encouraged, which weakens trust and escalates workplace conflicts instead of resolving them professionally. There is a visible mismatch between donor intent and spending priorities. Funds are often directed towards high-profile events, travel, and appearances rather than strengthening teams, systems, or ground-level work. Although mental well-being sessions are organised externally, the internal culture causes chronic stress, emotional exhaustion, and psychological insecurity. Employee mental health is discussed in theory but compromised in practice. Leadership remains weak and highly centralised, with favoritism at senior levels. Key leadership roles are concentrated within a close personal network, leaving little space for merit, accountability, or independent voices.
