Pros
The organization offers a flexible schedule, which made it easier to balance work and personal responsibilities. There are opportunities to connect with national partners and gain exposure to important healthcare and equity issues, which can be valuable for professional development. Some colleagues are deeply committed to the mission, and working alongside peers who genuinely care about the work was one of the few bright spots.
Cons
The positives are consistently undermined by poor leadership practices. Senior leadership often displayed microaggressions and lacked the expertise to effectively guide staff. Instead of developing internal talent, leadership leaned heavily on consultants—while staff with proven skills were pressured to overperform and “prove themselves” over and over again. At the same time, others were allowed to coast without accountability, rewarded for mediocrity rather than excellence. This double standard created a culture of inequity and frustration. Over time, the organization shifted away from being collaborative and equity-driven to becoming whitewashed and disconnected from its mission. The lack of transparency, inconsistent accountability, and values not aligning with daily practice made it increasingly difficult to stay motivated.