employer cover photo
employer logo
employer logo

International Rescue Committee

Is this your company?

IRC - Senior Technical Advisor International Rescue Committee Employee Review

2.0
22 Jan 2018
Recommend
CEO approval
Business outlook

Pros

-Large NGO with strong global presence. -Dedicated staff with many exceptional staff members, particularly field staff ("local" staff). - Great resettlement programs. - Great for getting your start in emergencies and getting exposure to multiple different contexts and countries.

Cons

- The IRC is quickly becoming a hollowed out brand. - Miliband has established an increasingly corporate culture that is driving bloated HQ staffing, at the expense of programs. - As others have noted, there are shockingly few people of color in the global offices or in leadership positions and no attention to diversity and inclusion. - Boys club culture still reigns, particularly at the field level and in some departments. Organizational blindness to sexual harassment. - Deep inequalities between staff - VPs and CEO in the top 1% income bracket, assistants in the lower 50%. - Often toxic work environment and hyper-competitive culture.

Explore other reviews about International Rescue Committee

5.0
24 May 2026
Recommend
CEO approval
Business outlook

Pros

Very valuable insights in conducting work. Provides valuable input.

Cons

None that I can think 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.

2
See reviews by: Helpful|Rating|Date|All