Worldwatch Institute Reviews

Cons

At Worldwatch Institute, since everyone for the most part has their own research project, you do feel isolated from projects that you're not directly contributing to. Since I was interning for the communications director, I got to see bits and pieces of ongoing projects but for those that are just working on their own projects --they may not have as much of a grasp on all the projects going on.

Cons

- There could be a little more communication between teams responsible for each program

Cons

--Funding
--Limited communication between research & admin departments

Cons

Poor management, limited funding and resources, unwillingness of the upper management to evolve and try new ideas and projects and step away from the the old school type of think tank.

Cons

Not too much communication between different departments

Cons

1. Similar to the post below. VERY VERY VERY Unorganized and horrible management. You will sit at your desk for 5 days with no assignments, then on a Friday at 4pm, you will receive an email saying they want a product over the weekend. (Let me remind you this is unpaid if your an intern). I do not understand why this organization waits to the very last minute on everything.

2. About 90% of directors and working staff work remotely. By remotely, I mean live in different countries. This would not be a bad thing if they were organized. If you need to talk to someone, expect to wait 3-4 days on a email reply.

Cons

Staffing shortage means you are often overworked with very little pay.
Salary and budget pales in comparison to other environmental nonprofits in the field of sustainable development
Very little interest or investment in human resources, professional development, or office culture.
Plagued by financial problems and mismanagement

Cons

I agree wholeheartedly with this reviewer:

"Seems to have trouble getting projects funded, probably because other similar environmental NGO's are doing bigger better things. Unfortunately management and long-time employees still think WW's voice is more important in the environmental dialogue than it actually is. They actually fail to see any need for change despite the hand-to-mouth situation WW has apparently been in for years."

This is a surprisingly inert bureaucratic organization with a baked in resistance to change - which is astonishing considering it's a pretty tiny organization. It is indeed an intern-factory, as many other reviewers have noted. They do most of the heavy lifting, trading their free labor, research, and intelligence in exchange for getting published on WW's blog.

Meanwhile, the nonprofit world has changed dramatically and Worldwatch has failed to keep up. The organization as a whole has had its head in the sand for quite some time. The prestige of its legacy publications, which used to hold a central role in the environmental community, has blinded upper management to necessary change in the way organizations can be successful in their missions. They live grant-to-grant and have at many times been unable to pay their employees, or nearly unable.

I also agree with several other reviewers that a few select middle managers are on a little bit of a personal power trip. This is allowed in part because upper management mistakes confidence for actual effectiveness, which is true in many nonprofits.

Cons

Management and organizational culture are the biggest disadvantages to working at this organization.
Senior managers lack necessary management and interpersonal skills
Certain administrative staff can be catty and severely bottleneck projects
Organizational livelihood is sacrificed due to the large egos of the Board
Unspoken belief that young professionals add no value, meaning there is no upward mobility
Long inefficient meetings driven by people who like the sound of their own voice
Complete lack of communication to even relevant staff
Pay is low, even for those paid out of restricted money
Lack of financial stability
Relatively high turnover rate amongst the younger staff

Cons

Poor management here - some are catty and have bad attitudes, some are impossible to work with, some love to hear themselves talk, and many share the belief that younger staffers are inferior. Not an ideal place to blossom but you'll find respite in the younger people there.

This place is a bit of an intern factory. 10+ interns working simultaneously (and that's just in office). And while they are generally intelligent, it speaks volumes about an organization when they have more unpaid than paid workers.

Major resistance to change and little value placed on non-research positions. Researchers end up being promoting to management roles, despite lack of experience.

Seems to have trouble getting projects funded, probably because other similar environmental NGO's are doing bigger better things. Unfortunately management and long-time employees still think WW's voice is more important in the environmental dialogue than it actually is. They actually fail to see any need for change despite the hand-to-mouth situation WW has apparently been in for years.

No room for professional growth = lower morale

Pay is only once a month (just bad practice) and salaries are low

Staff/program/etc. meetings are too long considering they produce nothing

Poor interoffice communication - no dept seems to know what the other depts are doing (despite multiple weekly meetings)

No marketing department - desperately needed

No money and poor future outlook.