Disparaging culture, lack of transparency, and poor strategy setting
Pros
Strong mission with an attentiveness to evidence-based solutions to literacy issues.
Cons
Reading Partners' national teams mistake reorganization for business strategy in the face of revenue failures that have been ongoing for a few years, now. The business model counts new revenue brought in from new city plants, which are lower in regional staff support and higher in national direction, as national revenue, which national team members have allowed to cushion the reality of the org's financial picture for some time now. This is a top-heavy organization with national "supports" that aren't delivering a strong ROI. The culture is toxic. If you're willing not to challenge the status-quo, you can move up the ladder. Re-orgs and new title shifts lack transparency, though. New positions are not posted internally throughout the network. Individuals who lack the experience, skills, and know-how for new senior-level positions are transitioned without interview processes or proper vetting. Finger-pointing and blaming are pervasive. Innovation (except within certain, higher levels of organization) is discouraged and cut down. Attentiveness to risk management strategies is non-existent. While RP is a data-heavy organization, it lacks any focus on community-based solutions or feedback from its partners, preferring to maintain a service-for-sale model without attention to the market at-hand or the ultimate customers: the students. It frequently drops schools from its service portfolio if the school cannot afford the programming, if the student environment is too challenging, or if RP national revenue failures demand that regions scale back. Pay disparities between staff levels are startlingly wide. Benefits are sub-market. A new CEO is promising but too much of the old-guard makes up the staff.
