employer cover photo
employer logo
employer logo

Institute For Humane Studies

Is this your company?

Institute For Humane Studies reviews

3.3

49% would recommend to a friend

(45 total reviews)
avatar

Emily Chamlee Wright

78% approve of CEO

56% positive business outlook

Institute For Humane Studies has an employee rating of 3.3 out of 5 stars, based on 45 company reviews on Glassdoor which indicates that most employees have a good working experience there. The Institute For Humane Studies employee rating is in line with the average (within 1 standard deviation) for employers within the Nonprofit & NGO industry (3.7 stars).

Reviews by job title

45 reviews
1.0
Dec 22, 2018

Bad Place to Work and Bad Employees

Anonymous employee
Recommend
CEO approval
Business Outlook

Pros

PTO, Honorable Mission, Dress Code

Cons

Terrible work structure. Their 'training program' is a joke. They don't mentor or develop new employees. Constantly you'll hear buzzwords they like to use such as 'processes' and 'logistics' or 'you got to be a self-starter'. This place has terrible turnover. Do a search of their former staff from years ago and compare to now. You'll see less than a third in about two years. While there's turnover everywhere this place has it worse than others. That should be a red-flag. The constant restructuring and chaotic leadership make this place a terrible place to work. HR department is a complete joke and they aren't even real HR professionals.

4.0
Nov 2, 2018

Manage programs

Anonymous employee
Recommend
CEO approval
Business Outlook

Pros

laid back, PTO, in Arlington, Virginia near metro

Cons

Office politics that affects promotions, gossip

2.0
Oct 25, 2018
Recommend
CEO approval
Business Outlook

Pros

Perks included interesting talks by outside experts, unlimited leave time, flexible hours, and free credits at GMU. Free parking or transit subsidy is provided. Health insurance is free for individuals, but can be expensive if you're also paying for a spouse or family. Substantial HSA funds are provided by IHS to help offset deductibles. The organization has been pursuing its laudable mission to promote classical liberal vales within academia for a long time and historically there have been some positive results. IHS has kept a relatively low profile in the past, but the organization seems to enjoy a reasonably strong reputation within the conservative/libertarian non-profit world and within "classical liberal" academic circles. With some exceptions, there tends to be relatively good relationships within individual departments, plus between mid-level managers and their reports. The majority of relationships and interactions I had with IHS staff were positive.

Cons

Constant structural flux and non-stop changes in the organization's focus leave employees in a perpetual state of trying to figure out exactly what their own jobs entail. Adjustments implemented by leadership usually seem reasonable on the surface. However, staff frequently perceive these decisions as rushed and ill-considered, since staff are not always sufficiently consulted ahead of time and are often left confused or scrambling as a result of the latest organizational changes. It is common for employees to change supervisors multiple times, even over the course of their first several months working of working at IHS. There are also constant meetings. Virtually all employees (mid-level mangers in particular) have the majority of their calendar filled with internal meetings of questionable value. This makes it hard to get any real work done and leaves many employees feeling stretched thin and stressed. The structure of the organization is also inordinately complex. Fragmentary/niche departments and complicated chains of command can make it daunting to find your place at IHS. Not only is it hard to learn who does what, but seemingly everyone is a "stakeholder" in every decision and they can become territorial, making it onerous to decide on almost everything. Plus, there is often a lack of goodwill and trust between departments, resulting in gossip and backstabbing behind the scenes. (Note that within departments cohesion is generally better and even between departments many folks come across as friendly.) Attrition is comparatively high, even by Washington D.C. standards. The strongest talent, especially at the entry level through middle management, tends either to get frustrated or receive a substantially better offer from elsewhere, so they decide to leave before long. (Of course, there are exceptions; some excellent folks manage to stick it out.) In other cases, talented staff are shown the door because changes in structure render them redundant or irrelevant. This results in concern about job security, causing even the strongest employees to watch for the writing on the wall.

Viewing 19 - 21 of 45 Reviews

Glassdoor has 50 Institute For Humane Studies reviews submitted anonymously by Institute For Humane Studies employees. Read employee reviews and ratings on Glassdoor to decide if Institute For Humane Studies is right for you.