Pros
Friends you make along the way
Cons
New leadership The transition in leadership, while initially seen as a positive change, quickly proved otherwise. While the improved work-life balance was appreciated, it came at the cost of clear direction, purpose, and morale. Leadership appeared ill-prepared for the role, frequently admitting they were still "adjusting" months into the job. How long does that take, exactly? You do realise people are counting on you, right? This left the team disoriented and disengaged. Tasks dwindled, ideas floating in the air and a sense of professional value was lost. Everything was just everywhere, messy and directionless. Even with limited experience with the previous management, the contrast was stark — there was once a vision and drive, now replaced by ambiguity and unsureness. Fake promises There were also concerning gaps in professionalism. The current leadership frequently oversells their capabilities and supposedly "impressive" background, but this confidence rarely translates into competence. Staff were often left questioning the credibility of certain claims, especially when basic operational questions were redirected back to them. It’s odd that the management is asking the staff how to do the management’s job. Questionable transparency Disclosures of internal financial struggles were also inappropriately and constantly shared across the company, creating unnecessary anxiety and overstepping professional boundaries. If you're in charge, isn't this basically your job? Why place that mental load on your team? You sure do know how to make staff lose confidence in the organisation. While transparency is important and generally appreciated, it's essential that it serves a clear and constructive purpose. Sharing details about the company's financial struggles with staff can be problematic if the intent is simply to gain empathy or justify decisions without actionable context. Ultimately, financial challenges are an organizational responsibility, and it's important that communications remain focused on how these issues will be addressed, rather than placing burden on employees. Lack of interest and involvement by leadership Despite the organisation’s stated mission to serve and support youths, actions often did not reflect this commitment. A performative approach seemed to replace genuine engagement, with little effort made to even learn names or even bother to recognise the faces of volunteers who dedicate so much time to give back to the community. Isn't that the least you could do? Be more present? Come on, fake it till you make it! Volunteer retention Let’s be real, most volunteers are here because of their friends, not because of the organisation itself. There’s no need to assume people are staying out of loyalty to Heartware. It’s the friendships that keep them coming back. That said, some volunteers also need to remember that volunteering shouldn’t take over their whole lives, especially for those at a point where they should be focusing on settling down or other life priorities. Get a life. Staff retention Staff retention rate is obviously an issue. When multiple people leave back-to-back, it says something. For national-level projects, having a new staff handle it every year is extremely alarming and difficult. It is unhelpful to both staff and volunteers. New staff are thrown into managing huge responsibilities, without proper training or support, and expected to work extremely long hours. Long working hours with insufficient time off or support further contribute to staff fatigue and dissatisfaction. This not only impacts staff well-being but also creates instability for volunteers who are repeatedly required to adapt to new leadership styles and face recurring operational issues. It’s also unfair to volunteers who constantly have to adjust to new faces, new leadership and deal with the same problems yearly. Toxic work environment and departments Additionally, the tendency to undervalue younger employees was demoralising. Being young was often equated with incompetence, which is both unfair and short-sighted. Many of these staff members are capable and committed — they deserve mentorship, not scepticism. Think before you speak. Toxic behaviour from certain departments further eroded the work environment. Targeting younger staff, making baseless assumptions, spreading rumours and bringing others down was alarmingly common. Experience should come with maturity and empathy, not arrogance and superiority. It’s disappointing to witness senior staff tearing others down. Mind you, you already have your life sorted out and the younger ones are just beginning. All these years of experience just for you to be bullies, grow up. There are certain roles in a company that exist to support staff, entrusted to handle sensitive information and are expected to uphold confidentiality (not mentioning which, but iykyk). But when these people are running their mouths, sharing what management said about others, poking staff by sharing what other colleagues said about them in hopes to create friction, or even revealing private details like salaries, it becomes a serious problem. This is a breach of professional conduct. What exactly are you trying to achieve? It’s not just unprofessional; it’s a breach of trust. If you are the one who is meant to protect staff information are the ones casually sharing it, how can anyone feel safe in this organisation? To those who are still working there, be careful! Though I think this group of problematic individuals have left hahaha No coordination The organisation's operations also suffered from a serious lack of coordination. Initiatives were frequently derailed by poor planning, unnecessary interdepartmental involvement, and a lack of follow-through from leadership. Time and resources were often wasted on tasks that led nowhere, all while leadership remained largely absent from the process. It's a never-ending cycle.