Pros
lots of really good smart people
benefits are solid
org is trying to streamline itself and build processes
if your manager is a good manager, you have a lot of flexibility, creativity, and room to lead
Cons
the lab used to be an org that had really good intentions but was struggling to align action with intention, now it moreso feels like an org that is more focused on establishing itself as an expert and keeping itself alive than addressing the problems that it was founded to solve (we should want to work ourselves out of a job). exec leadership dynamics are toxic and political and all employees below them suffer because of the ways their behavior trickles down. proposals are developed with a "lie to get the funding and the connections and figure it out later" approach. the org has fallen more in love with its solutions and standing than with the problems and real people it hopes to support. really good smart people are pitted against each other. it's like watching and breathing capitalism at work (the promise of individuality, zero sum myth, sunk cost fallacy, competition driving innovation) vs creating and investing in effective solutions and strategies (equity centered design and collective impact work grounded in real problem understanding that uplifts people at the center of these problems who have been doing this work and know what they need). the org uses a lot of terms and does not actually understand how to embody what they mean, and has fired / driven out those who actually can speak to them (SDT, human centered design, justice and equity and inclusion, neutral convenor and facilitator etc). people stay because the benefits are good, the job market sucks, and there are still good smart people to work with on the ground.