Aspen Institute Employee Reviews about "pay"

Pros

Great atmosphere and amazing culture

Cons

None. Pay was good and good leadership

Pros

Aspen attracts young and brilliant people - the culture is the best part. Aspen works on a wide diversity of issues. Aspen unique in its decentralized structure, encouraging entrepreneurship, while streamlining the bureaucracy. Opportunity to travel.

Cons

Sometimes overworked, or working long hours. Nonprofit sector means less pay than a similar position in the private sector.

Pros

Work life balance, yearly trips to Aspen, collaborative environment.

Cons

Lots of millennials, which brings an attitude of entitlement. Every program is different, so the culture can vary from program to program. Salary could be better - be sure to fight for fair pay, as many managers are fine working you to death and paying you less than you deserve. Overall, after 3-5 years, it’s difficult to grow, unless you change programs.

Pros

The higher up the food chain you are, the more lavish the salary—and we're talking $$$$. The health insurance is outstanding and you pay little for it. Swanky offices. Some lovely, brilliant colleagues who care deeply about the missions of their respective programs. Interesting lectures and meetings.

Cons

Aspen should rename itself the Aspen Institute for Fancy Hobnobbing—at least that would be honest. I knew something was very wrong when someone boasted during a new employee orientation about Aspen having a fundraising dinner at Monticello, glossing over the part where Jefferson owned slaves. This from an organization that claims to prioritize DEI. What I saw at Aspen was a lot of hypocrisy. Leaders who said they supported equity but denied raises to overworked younger staffers while they made over $250k a year. Black support staff berated by entitled white directors for doing monthly food purges from the communal fridges that were announced days in advance. Stories of tyrannical program executive directors abusing their staff were legion. A ridiculous structure that has programs paying 18% of their budgets to the larger institute for services like IT, communications, and financial integrity, departments that were derided for being slow and ineffective. Entire weeks passed when printers used by a lot of people did not work! Aspen leaders who pat each other on the back for a NYT story about Business Roundtable compelling companies to not solely focus on shareholder value, when the rest of the world made that argument five years before. Then the story WaPo broke about Aspen accepting SBA money when Michael Freaking Bloomberg is on its board! Only after a PR crisis unfolded did Aspen return the money. Shameful. And those interesting meetings? Lots of ideas thrown about, but whatever comes of them is anyone's guess. It's like Davos: a bunch of "thought leaders" and plutocrats gather to discuss big problems and fool themselves into thinking they're doing something meaningful. Aspen is all talk, no action. It's been trying to rebrand itself to counter this perception, but anyone with half a brain knows better. No one outside rarefied think tank circles knows what Aspen does and even within these circles, not many take the institute seriously. Aspen doesn't have the policy chops of Brookings or the media savvy and influence of AEI. It was distressing to see intelligent people I liked wrongly believe their work had any impact. Sometimes I felt like I was losing my mind. Read what Anand Giridharadas has written about Aspen; he is absolutely correct.

Pros

relaxed atmosphere; each program acts as its own entity in that they raise their own funds therefore they act with complete autonomy of standards and practices for that program's employees/ team members; seminars and workshops are plentiful, along with the many opportunities to meet distinguished members of society, government officials, and global figureheads; the ability to mingle with a diverse group of people from all backgrounds and interests is invaluable; definitely looks good on the resume (if you are willing to put up with ulcers, gray hair, and anxiety issues in the end of it- more on that, in "cons" below)

Cons

as in the title, this is a double edged sword- since each program acts as its own entity, this also leaves much rm for error; from inconsistent standards policies and procedures, to a lack of managerial integrity, the problems stem from a blind upper management whose sight is too fixed on lofty goals, with no 'peripheral' sight on core issues/ strengths/ weaknesses. working with aspen is a mixed bag: some programs are superb, some barely fit the bill; and while work life balance can be excellent with such a relaxed culture, don't let the empty promise of relaxation fool you: think carrot and stick principle, where the carrot is constantly dangling, and the stick is just a hologram of a metal baseball bat. you may get small perks like cost of living pay increase, but if you are unlucky enough to be a part of one of the less desirable programs your chances for advancement are little to none, and you will constantly be threatened. i left feeling that i wasted two yrs of my life in a glass room looking at all the wonderful things passing me by. multiple degrees, awesome personality, and a laundry list of skills were no match for the egos and agendas of the major players of the program i was in- my exit interview was combative, and management acted juvenile at best; the level of hostility i received upon leaving was shocking. Unfortunately for those not as proactive as I in willingness to quit and move on, i have heard multiple cases of severance pay with binding legal contracts (to prevent former employees from taking legal action beyond employment or otherwise). and to add insult to injury, inter-program mobility within the institute is little to none. My advice to any would be employee is to use whatever network you have to get an insider look at the institute, but more importantly take a microscope to the program you wish to work in. take some time to think about mobility and advancement within that program: if you ask your hiring manager about previous employees and the turnover is high, yet none have been promoted, unless you are passionate about that policy field (international development or environmental) then think twice.