Pros
Some bright, well-intentioned colleagues trying to make the best of a bad situation. Holidays.
Cons
My experience at this organisation was overwhelmingly negative, and candidates deserve a frank account before considering a role here. Although the organisation markets itself as a mission-driven not-for-profit, internally it behaves like a politically charged private company where decisions are driven by allegiance rather than competence. Major restructures were carried out under the convenient label of “external consultancy assessments,” but the process felt more theatrical than genuine. Long-serving experts were moved aside, while far less experienced individuals were abruptly elevated. Unsurprisingly, this triggered a mass exodus: dozens of people left one department alone. No one can plausibly call that normal. One of the most concerning aspects is the complete absence of proper governance. There is effectively no independent oversight, no checks and balances, and no functioning escalation routes. A single leadership pairing dominates every decision, from HR to IT priorities, regardless of their actual expertise in those areas. The organisation’s structure exists on paper only; in practice, everything is concentrated in the hands of one senior figure and their closest ally, whose influence extends far beyond their formal remit. The HR department is purely operational and offers no meaningful support. They act entirely on instruction from the same leadership circle and cannot be relied upon as a neutral party. For employees facing issues, this leaves no safe or credible avenue to raise concerns. What follows from this is a culture of extreme favouritism. A small inner circle receives constant travel, rapid promotions, and perks, while others are sidelined or managed out. Advancement has little to do with skill and everything to do with being on the “right side” of those in charge. If you don't belong to this group, you might be a bad apple. Boundaries are routinely crossed; leadership displays an unusually close dynamic that many perceive as blurring professional lines, and this directly affects who is rewarded, who is punished, and whose voice matters. Employee autonomy is almost nonexistent. Senior leaders show a troubling sense of entitlement over staff’s personal lives — including attempts to influence how people behave on their own social media accounts (The whole organization gets e-mails telling them which posts to like and not to like on LinkedIn, or private messages telling them to remove reactions or comments they've made). The expectation appears to be total loyalty, public enthusiasm, and unquestioning agreement. Anything less is treated with suspicion. Despite public claims of valuing inclusion, diversity, and scientific integrity, the internal reality is deeply hierarchical, fear-driven, and politically loaded. Many employees stay silent because alternatives in the region for highly technical roles are limited. Others benefit from the inner circle and therefore prop up the system. Even governance bodies appear aware of the issues but remain hands-off, leaving employees with no real protection. Overall, working here often feels like stepping back decades to a workplace where questioning leadership is unwelcome, power is concentrated in a small and unusually interconnected group, and your progression depends entirely on staying in their good graces altough you are oftern