employer cover photo
employer logo
employer logo

International Rescue Committee

Is this your company?

Nice people, no practical solution for work life balance - Anonymous employee International Rescue Committee Employee Review

3.0
Jan 27, 2020
Anonymous employee
Recommend
CEO approval
Business Outlook

Pros

On the whole the people who work at the IRC are nice and good at what they do. People are cause-driven which creates a common set of values and goals. The London office is good socially. Some of the Senior Programmes staff in New York are excellent leaders.

Cons

Driving business development with insufficient consideration for the need to properly resource teams or even to fill existing vacancies before raising targets. This puts staff under huge amounts of pressure and leads many to work constant overtime and creates a poor working ethic/environment. There is an inconsistency of salary amongst staff members both within the same and different units. People management skills should be ensured, and invested in more heavily.

Explore other reviews about International Rescue Committee

5.0
Dec 25, 2025
Recommend
CEO approval
Business Outlook

Pros

Everyone is so nice here.

Cons

we have a lot of time to collaborate one project

2.0
Apr 22, 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