Pros
Fighting for a critical disease that impacts 130 million people. The local field staff are good hard-working people who care about the mission. Staff is fairly compensated at most levels. Good volunteers who care about the organization
Cons
I recently left this organization and can really only speak about the development side of the house and my experience as a long-term fundraising professional. The internal working environment, particularly at higher levels, consistently have a negative impact on employee morale and effectiveness. Don’t walk from this organization, RUN! One of the biggest issues is the unrealistic expectations placed upon staff, especially those in the field….you know, the ones who actually do the work. These goals are not only often unattainable but are also subject to constant, random shifts and changes in strategy. This constant moving of goalposts not only shows a weakness in strategic leadership but it creates an environment of instability and makes it incredibly difficult for dedicated employees to plan, execute, and feel successful in their roles. There seems to be a disconnection between leadership and the actual realities on the ground, with little understanding of the resources and challenges faced by those directly engaging with volunteers, communities and fundraising. The organizational structure is top-heavy, with too many Vice Presidents and not enough direct workers in the field. This imbalance adds to the disconnect, as decisions are made far from where the work actually happens. This, combined with an overwhelming tendency towards micromanagement, is paralyzing. Especially during the weeks before an event where there is an expectation of DAILY revenue check ins! Reporting out the same information to several layers of VP’ and the SVP…scare tactics are their strategy. Employees feel stifled and unable to leverage their expertise or initiative, as every action is subject to excessive scrutiny and control from above. The Senior Vice President of the field is a complete joke. She is frequently described as a tyrant and someone who is simply not a nice person. Her contribution to the organization is minimal and literally zero when it comes to revenue. She is consistently characterized as a bully and instills fear for job security among staff. Don’t bother going to HR. Folks were told to stand down when they did. Rather than providing support or resources to help teams achieve their goals, she attempts to publicly humiliate individuals who fail to meet targets. This SVP has never personally raised a dollar which means her strategic guidance in fundraising efforts is largely useless and demonstrates a lack of practical understanding of the challenges faced by the field. Similarly, the Chief Development Officer and her VP minions, who are all Bullies, is criticized for remaining behind closed doors, constantly changing strategy without clear communication or logical progression. One strategy doesn’t work so it’s on to the next. This approach further alienates field staff and contributes to the instability in goals and priorities. When a staff person leaves, she announces to the organization “no loss to the organization” If she were a true leader she would investigate WHY so many people are leaving instead of bragging about an 80% turn over. This organization embraces bullying at the highest level, indicative of a total lack of effective leadership. The micromanagement, combined with a fundamental detachment from the day-to-day operations and a culture of fear, drives good people away. The CEO's apparent absence and tolerance of such poor leadership behavior are seen as a critical failure, directly contributing to the attrition of talented and mission-driven individuals. If you value your internal peace, look elsewhere.