employer cover photo
employer logo
employer logo

International Rescue Committee

Is this your company?

Used to be a good company to work for..... - Anonymous employee International Rescue Committee Employee Review

2.0
Nov 26, 2015
Anonymous employee
Recommend
CEO approval
Business Outlook

Pros

Working alongside individuals who put their heart and soul into their work. Meaningful work that makes a difference. Great fringe benefits. Providing direct service and the client interactions.

Cons

Managers and supervisors were never trained on how to manage employees and provide support when needed. Management also does not know how to handle difficult and uncomfortable situations, which adds to employees' dissatisfaction and low morale. No accountability for both management and employees, due to friendship and nepotism. Little room for growth, which is largely dependent on funding. The organization's stated culture and value is a false and inaccurate portrayal.

Explore other reviews about International Rescue Committee

5.0
May 24, 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
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