employer cover photo
employer logo
employer logo

International Rescue Committee

Is this your company?

Corporate monster with a conscience. - Anonymous employee International Rescue Committee Employee Review

1.0
9 Jan 2018
Anonymous employee
Recommend
CEO approval
Business outlook

Pros

Amazing colleagues to work with at country office level. Good quality and highly motivated staff. Plenty of funds for technical support.

Cons

Regional and HQ levels are nepotistic, unethical, and accept a culture of bullying for the sake of growth. Work is taken from lower levels and displayed as their own by outdated mid and senior management. The organisation claims people are first but there is no substance behind it. National staff are treated as second rate and with complete disrespect. It's more like 'wolf of wall street' than a humanitarian organisation. The financial waste, and acceptance of it, is off the scale and getting worse. It didn't used to be like this,

Explore other reviews about International Rescue Committee

5.0
12 Mar 2026
Recommend
CEO approval
Business outlook

Pros

Had a wonderful time interacting with the students and coworkers. Really appreciate the work of the IRC in supporting migrants.

Cons

No Cons to speak of

2.0
22 Apr 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