Pros
There are talented, mission-driven people here, but the organization is currently defined by instability and short-term decision-making.
Cons
Strategic direction changes frequently, often with little notice, which creates constant whiplash for teams. Projects are started, stopped, and re-scoped on timelines that make it difficult to execute thoughtfully. Long-term planning feels limited, and it’s hard to see a consistent vision guiding decisions and work really is defined by whatever dream the people in leadership had the night before or what the headline was of yesterday. Morale is the lowest I’ve ever seen. Many employees are actively exploring other opportunities, and there is widespread frustration about the lack of transparency and follow-through from leadership. Concerns are raised repeatedly, but meaningful changes rarely materialize. There is also a disconnect between the stated mission and the work being done. Support for external scientists and end users does not always appear to be prioritized in practice, despite being central to the organization’s public messaging. If you’re interviewing, ask direct questions about: Turnover on the team you’re joining How often priorities have shifted in the past year What concrete steps leadership has taken to address morale How strategy is set and communicated The mission is compelling, but candidates should carefully evaluate whether the current environment aligns with what they’re looking for.