employer cover photo
employer logo
employer logo

International Rescue Committee

Is this your company?

Stay in your box - Development Manager International Rescue Committee Employee Review

2.0
26 Mar 2017
Recommend
CEO approval
Business outlook

Pros

Work that is important, even if that's not felt on a daily basis. Wide exposure to how a large NGO functions. Well meaning and diligent colleagues. Increasingly high profile.

Cons

Very bureaucratic, and each level of leadership from unit level to department to overarching department associate directors/directors/vice presidents seem incapable of accepting responsibility for their part in creating a negative environment, and then actively taking the reigns to make big culture changes. Little room for professional development. The ideal employee is someone who cranks out work for their boss with little eye towards the future. People are only promoted or given opportunity once they threaten to leave or their dissatisfaction is obvious.

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