Ambitious Impact Reviews

- A serious discrimination incident was swept under the rug. A formal external HR review eventually required the CEO to formally apologize to the aggrieved party. However, employees were subsequently made redundant in circumstances that raised serious questions about the legitimacy of these redundancies. The redundancies didn't follow proper process—there were no documented structural changes to the organization, no consultation period, and no objective selection criteria applied. Most tellingly, the organization had hired for these same roles immediately before the redundancies were announced and/or continued recruiting for identical positions shortly after, demonstrating that the roles themselves remained necessary to the organization. The CEO cited budget constraints as the reason, yet grant/s had been awarded to the organization to cover this period, and budget concerns had never been communicated—either formally or informally—within the organization prior to the redundancies. During this time, the board appeared to prioritize protecting the organization over holding the CEO accountable. The board was initially unaware that the CEO was making these decisions unilaterally, but later became complicit by retroactively presenting as if they had been consulted. - Multiple conflicts of interest created systemic problems. The CEO dated other C-level staff members, leading to unprofessional workplace behavior with no consequences and toxic communication patterns that went completely unaddressed. - The CEO consistently avoided accountability and direct confrontation. Rather than following proper processes like performance reviews, interpersonal problems were solved through redundancies or toxic communication patterns. The CEO rarely acknowledged wrongdoing—issues were simply swept under the rug. - Limited professional development opportunities for junior to mid-level staff, with inadequate coaching and support that in some cases led to negligence causing harm to both staff and organizational outcomes. I believe things have improved since my time there, but none of these serious issues were properly acknowledged or addressed during my years working there.

Employee comp is often below market rate to improve the organisation's cost effectiveness. This leads to a team that is, on the whole, a bit inexperienced and younger.