Pros
Remote-first workplace, benefits, retirement match program, good paid time off.
Cons
Poor change management. Lack of strong leadership trickles into poor communication and mistrust. Staff feedback is collected but not acted upon. Consistent unkept promises to improve. High staff turnover: 3 different CEOs in 4 years, multiple C-suite changes, sudden department changes - all shared without transparency, all were said to be "planned" structural changes (claims directly rebuked by employees). Consistent negative feedback from implementing partners on how the relationship is handled. Diversity, equity and inclusion are said but not acted upon. CEO went on a "work trip" to Thailand with other office heads and produced no oral or written report on strategies, problems solved, new direction, or any other item that would justify that cost (poor financial practices). The few highly impactful programs were abruptly cut after confirming plans to continue which left partners in low-resource settings scrambling to choose which of their programs to cut and staff to keep. CEO was grandfathered into the role and he, himself, admitted he was "unqualified" and "had no vision" - it is difficult to feel safe on a boat with an incompetent captain. Salaries are disproportionately high for some C-suite executives compared to other similar sized orgs - evidence of poor financial distribution (see 990s). Leadership has low EQ.
This org will p!ss on your leg and tell you it's raining then have an All Staff meeting full of soulless motivational quotes and celebration of outputs without a focus on impact. It's hard to watch an organization with such potential continue to focus on the charity mindset and forego true impact for fear of change.