Pros
None come to mind to be honest. Interesting mission on paper.
Cons
At the C-level, the priorities are painfully obvious: maximize their own compensation at all costs. Decisions that directly impact employees (like funding for engagement initiatives, career development, and promotions) are the first to get cut. It’s hard not to notice the pattern when those cuts conveniently align with leadership continuing to take home extremely generous pay packages.
HR is not an advocate for employees here. Leadership in HR appears well-compensated and, unsurprisingly, aligns closely with protecting executive interests rather than addressing staff concerns. Don’t expect meaningful support or change to come from that direction.
What’s more concerning is how disconnected leadership is from reality. There’s a strong sense that many at the top are over their heads and lack a basic understanding of how a functional, modern non-profit operates. The gap between decision-making and day-to-day operations is staggering.
Basic infrastructure is neglected—you’ll run into issues with things as simple as Wi-Fi or a working printer—yet somehow there’s budget to pay individuals who barely show up salaries approaching half a million. That contrast says everything.
At this rate, it’s hard to feel confident about the organization’s future. If fundamental priorities don’t shift, I genuinely wouldn’t be surprised if it struggles to keep its doors open.
Highly toxic environment driven by constant gossip and backchannel chatter.