Pros
Like many nonprofits, being under resourced breeds creativity in some and causes others to put their heads down. Staff who have an ability to travel and work in a relevant program, will get to assist on all sorts of projects that they may not have even thought possible. Not having a Chief Development Officer means that staff can learn development, not having a Chief Marketing Officer means that you get to fill those gaps.
Cons
The model that allows all these staff to travel may not be scalable or relevant. The model has become getting established scientists to squeeze often irrelevant tasks into their research programs in order to cater to certain audiences, whether a corporate audience with a very specific interest and limited time or a wealthy person who helps on projects every year and needs variety to still be interested in signing up for Earthwatch instead of another trip. With competition from so many organizations doing similar work that have the flexibility to subsidize research and get people out into the field at a more substantial level, it's not clear why the organization still exists. Many of the long time employees talk fairly opening about exit plans but their inability to get another job speaks volumes about why people stay.