employer cover photo
employer logo
employer logo

International Rescue Committee

Is this your company?

Incompetent and Arrogant Leadership Led the Org Away from Its Values - Director International Rescue Committee Employee Review

1.0
10 Feb 2025
Recommend
CEO approval
Business outlook

Pros

Mission-committed colleagues in global environment

Cons

-Leadership prioritized rapid growth over sustainability, which led to a $50M deficit and budget mismanagement, resulting in layoffs. -Top leadership is mostly white, with many coming from an insular, politically connected group around the CEO. -The CEO’s pay is triple that of peers in similar roles—just feels so so wrong, and against what most of the staff stands for. What ever happened to leading by example? -The company was shameful in its response to the Gaza situation—see coverage in The New Humanitarian for more. -There’s a trend of hiring ex-McKinsey people who, somehow, end up with more influence than staff with real expertise. Top leadership seems to need constant hand-holding from the strategy and finance teams, who communicate in their love language of Excel sheets and PowerPoint slides.

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.

3
See reviews by: Helpful|Rating|Date|All