employer cover photo
employer logo
employer logo

International Rescue Committee

Is this your company?

Collaborative and Thriving Team - Anonymous employee International Rescue Committee Employee Review

5.0
17 Sept 2015
Anonymous employee
Recommend
CEO approval
Business outlook

Pros

A collaborative, inviting, friendly, passionate team of employees that are willing to help. I loved being an intern because they give you the opportunity to take on as much as you want and get involved wholeheartedly. Their transition to a bigger office made it more accommodating for interns as well. Proud to have been a part of the family!

Cons

Your experience truly depends on your supervisor. Some are organized and clearly tell you what they expect from you, while others are a bit too busy to manage your presence and willingness to help. Staff is overwhelmed with work and pressured to take on more, it's the nature of most non-profits, but I just felt bad!

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