World Animal Protection Employee Reviews about "charity"

Updated Mar 13, 2019

To filter reviews, or .
3.6
71%
Recommend to a Friend
66%
Approve of CEO
World Animal Protection Chief Executive Steve McIvor (no image)
Steve McIvor
3 Ratings
Pros
  • "The staff was made up of some of the most talented people with a great passion for animal welfare(in 14 reviews)

  • "You get to work towards something you believe in, whether you make a difference or not is hard to tell(in 7 reviews)

Cons
  • "Limited opportunities due to favoured individuals by senior management through friendships not performance(in 22 reviews)

  • "People who lead the organisation have little knowledge about animal welfare and take important decisions without consulting experts(in 19 reviews)

More Pros and Cons

Reviews about "charity"

Return to all Reviews
  1. Helpful (8)

    "Fake stories and false claims"

    2.0
    • Work/Life Balance
    • Culture & Values
    • Career Opportunities
    • Compensation and Benefits
    • Senior Management
    Former Employee - Marketing in New York, NY
    Doesn't Recommend
    Negative Outlook
    No opinion of CEO

    I worked at World Animal Protection full-time for more than a year

    Pros

    Great, talented, and diverse staff. Hard-working teams. Good middle management that genuinely cares. I've met some great folks who truly believe in the mission.

    Cons

    Bad and disorganized upper management (no clear vision, no long-term planning). Horrible waste of money on the organizational level (flights, conferences, accommodations...). A lot of false claims and "fake stories" of "thousands" of animals that are being saved somewhere in Romania without any factual back-up. A low ranking on Charity Navigator is justified.

    Continue reading
  2. Helpful (11)

    "Miserable"

    1.0
    • Work/Life Balance
    • Culture & Values
    • Career Opportunities
    • Compensation and Benefits
    • Senior Management
     in London, England
    Doesn't Recommend
    Disapproves of CEO

    I worked at World Animal Protection

    Pros

    Shared trauma creates good friendships.

    Cons

    This organisation is constantly trying to prove to itself that it can do the job it purports to do, but fails in almost every way. Working here was a daily professional and personal slap in the face. As for work environment, you will observe adults behave like spoilt children after following the example set by senior management. Hard workers, late stayers and those with the most relevant sector experience will be bullied, exploited and demoralised, as they watch those in bed with the CEO promoted. I’ve never worked anywhere else with such a high turnover rate, or so many taking stress leave to recover from doing their office-based jobs. Do yourself a favour and work for a charity that cares about its employees, recognises effort, and applauds genuine passion for the cause. Steer clear of this soul destroying black hole in the animal welfare movement, where supporter donations go to die.

    Continue reading
  3. Helpful (7)

    "plea to management - care about your staff"

    1.0
    • Work/Life Balance
    • Culture & Values
    • Career Opportunities
    • Compensation and Benefits
    • Senior Management
    Former Employee - Project Manager in London, England
    Doesn't Recommend
    Negative Outlook
    Disapproves of CEO

    I worked at World Animal Protection full-time for more than 3 years

    Pros

    Like so many of the other reviews here; the best thing about WSPA (or WAP as it is now known) is that the colleagues you will work alongside are amazing and completely dedicated to animal welfare. Don't go any higher than Manager level though because at this point your realise it is every man and women out for themselves in one giant power battle which has nothing whatsoever to do with animals. You will make so brilliant friends, and get paid a decent amount - and hopefully the connections you make will help you quickly find your next job.

    Cons

    Here is my plea to management - care about your staff, and show them that you care. Maybe even apologise for your mistakes - this would go a long way. WAP has a long and horrible history of bullying, and the HR team are only seen to work for the benefit of the senior managers. Countless staff have left with no job to go to because they simply cannot stand to work there anymore. This is especially true of the UK office. And yet this is both never recognised by managers - or acted upon. If you are liked by SMT then the world is your oyster - you can get promoted to positions created especially for you, get pay rises and are flown around the world. The inconsistent recruitment policy is a long term cause of frustration amongst middle and junior management staff who see people get given jobs, whilst other position are advertised externally and internal candidates are told not to apply. This review and all the others written on here are considered to be the views of a couple of 'troublemakers' - SMT listen to your staff. We are not troublemakers, we want to work in a constructive environment which doesn't pit staff at junior levels against each other, which in turn creates an atmosphere of fear and distrust. This only results in teams which won’t communicate because they feel they are competing with one another. This all comes down to the fact that the CEO won’t decide who ultimately makes decisions, should the communications team guide campaigns, should policy or campaigns come first? No one will make the decision so the internal infighting to see who comes out on top is horrendous. SMT - It is good that you have finally chosen to recognise the Union, but now you have to listen to what the Union say and make changes which show that you genuinely care about your staff. Secondly, please actually do something to make the lives of animals better. I really don't understand how WAP hasn't been investigated by the Charity Commission or a similar body for misuse of charity funds. The reporting system asks for staff to indicate how many animals have been 'saved' by the work of WAP. The real answer is shockingly low, a handful of bears that are taken into a sanctuary in Romania are the only real beneficiaries of WAP's millions. And this case study is then used as the fundraising appeal to generate excessive amounts of money which is ploughed back into a series of endless board meetings and strategy workshops. I don't know how many times each country office can say that a new sanctuary enclosure needs to be built before someone questions exactly how much money actually goes to the sanctuary (a fraction of what is raised). It is often mentioned that charity funds have been used inappropriately, be it to pay for large workshops which require staff from all around the world to fly to the UK to stay in four star hotels, or to pay for the rent on a London flat for a member of SMT. Almost like the MP's expenses scandal it seems that this can’t go on forever without members of the public finding out. As another reviewer mentioned I have known staff who loved WAP before joining, and donated on a monthly basis - only to join the organisation and immediately cancel their direct debit once they understand how their donation is used. Surely this is an indication that something is seriously wrong with the charity.

    Continue reading
  4. Helpful (4)

    "A charity which cares more about titles than helping animals"

    2.0
    • Work/Life Balance
    • Culture & Values
    • Career Opportunities
    • Compensation and Benefits
    • Senior Management
    Former Employee - Anonymous Employee in London, England
    Doesn't Recommend
    Negative Outlook
    Disapproves of CEO

    I worked at World Animal Protection full-time for more than 3 years

    Pros

    The salaries are good for the sector and I met some really nice people.

    Cons

    A lot of the problems at WSPA (now re-branded World Animal Protection) stem from the poor leadership of the senior management teams. There is a lack of transparency around hiring and promotions, and an obsession with titles and hierarchy. The opinions of non-senior staff are often dismissed and it is very difficult to progress. There is a lot I could go in to around certain issues to do with leadership, transparency and morale, but I do not wish to as I do not want to damage the reputation of what could be a very effective charity. However, I would say that a good test to see how good an organisation is, is by how many staff members donate or fundraise (in an non-paid capacity). I don't believe that many of WSPA/World Animal Protection's supporters are staff members.

    Continue reading
  5. Helpful (4)

    "All the way downhill, from a great beginning to a disappointing end"

    1.0
    • Work/Life Balance
    • Culture & Values
    • Career Opportunities
    • Compensation and Benefits
    • Senior Management
    Former Employee -  in London, England
    Doesn't Recommend
    Negative Outlook
    Disapproves of CEO

    I worked at World Animal Protection full-time for more than 5 years

    Pros

    This is going to sounds so predictably like the other reviews. The staff are what can make this a great place – many people who work at WSPA across the offices (those that are still open!) are dedicated, imaginative and have a sincere interest in animal welfare. Working with people I respected, many of whom have become good friends, is one of the key reasons I remained at WSPA so long when there is so much fundamentally wrong with the place. Also some of the T&Cs are good, bike scheme, parental leave, holidays etc. and the pay is good for the sector, which is why the refusal to recognise a union is bizarre. I was proud to work there once, WSPA has a great history, but there needs to be a major sea change before I believe many could say that in future.

    Cons

    Where to begin! The leadership have created a toxic atmosphere where all questions and suggestions are taken as criticism. Once you are branded ‘negative’ there is no way back. It is incredibly clear who is in favour and who is not – if the management don’t like you, you really do need to start looking for a new job ASAP as responsibility and staff will be stripped away until your position becomes untenable. This didn’t happen to me as I decided to put my morals in a cupboard and get on with the job, but I have seen it many times. My role allowed me more than a glimpse into the finances - I was horrified. If the charity commission decide to take a long hard look at the books there would be serious points to answer. ‘Lost’ money, money spent where it isn’t meant to be, what is counted as ‘education’ costs... And this is all apart from the flagrant waste on senior management travel and conferences when Skype would do. A quick look at where the highest paid people have come from/how they’ve met will soon show up a web of nepotism and fundamental lack of skills to do their roles that will literally make donors weep. Animal welfare work – which I once saw make major change for animals around the world and was so proud to be part of – has ground to a halt. Look at the last Global review and read between the lines, then ask what they spent the money on. All this stems from the leadership, which is rude, surprisingly ignorant of the issues they purport to care about and arrogant. My line manager was amazing and inspiring, but could not shield me from being sworn at by their superior and generally talked to like dirt. Never experienced anything like it after more than 15 years in the charity sector at numerous orgs, large and small. Successive good managers I had at WSPA left, disillusioned. And have gone on to great things! In short, I expect to work hard for a charity and to be paid less than peers in the private sectors. I expect to have less perks and to work with limited resources. What I don’t expect is to leave at the end of each day feeling like I am complicit in stealing from people who care about the cause, while the board soirees are served by hired waiters.

    Continue reading

Choose a different language and keep reading other reviews.

Found 5 reviews