employer cover photo
employer logo
employer logo

International Rescue Committee

Is this your company?

pediatrician clinical officer - CLINICAL OFFICER PEDIATRICIAN International Rescue Committee Employee Review

4.0
Sep 14, 2017
Recommend
CEO approval
Business Outlook

Pros

its a humanitarian organization providing very essential services to persons affected by disastrous events leaving them helpless and exposed to high risks.

Cons

Career growth is limited in some departments especially for clinical officers and nurses, also TTA almost totally doesn't favour the same said. no existence of Exchange programs which may help one to have a break from the routine. By going for exchange program may help in experiencing other working environment and assessing oneself from the both side, learning still will take place and probably something good which can boost your performance. exchange of ideas in case management can be realized. Work stress can also be adequately managed on changing environment . In summary it will be motivating so much.

Explore other reviews about International Rescue Committee

5.0
Jun 15, 2026
Recommend
CEO approval
Business Outlook

Pros

Flexible work schedule Great cause Dedicated staff

Cons

None that I can think of

2.0
Apr 22, 2026
Anonymous employee
Recommend
CEO approval
Business Outlook

Pros

You will meet some amazing and passionate people here who are truly there for the mission. Many came to this country as refugees and immigrants themselves and continue to devote their lives to helping others going through similar experiences. If you end up on the right team, it's an extremely rewarding job.

Cons

Unfortunately, the HQ upper management makes it a toxic place to work. VPs regularly undercut each other publicly (including at all-team meetings and gossiping negatively with staff), especially when potential job cuts were on the horizon. C-Suite didn't listen to staff concerns about upper management and didn't investigate major departures by dedicated staff who left due to poor management despite their dedication to the mission. Leaders picked favorites, ignoring work performance (excusing mediocre performance in some, having high standards for others), and preferred yes-men over staff who wanted to think more critically about the work. Projects were pushed too quickly, despite concerns that it could be detrimental to clients. Positions given to unqualified internal staff who wouldn't be interviewed for the role as external candidates. Senior leaders (director and above) are more focused on keeping their jobs than the mission and will use lower staff work for their own career growth/safety. DEI didn't seem to apply for senior leader roles, where there was little, if any, diversity.

4
See reviews by: Helpful|Rating|Date|All