CLASP Reviews

The Communications team is, unfortunately, one of the most challenging departments I’ve encountered. While many junior team members are competent and sincere, the leadership—particularly the director and chief—require serious reevaluation. One operates with a pseudo-authoritarian style and is known to make inappropriate, even racially insensitive comments off-record, while the other seems more focused on appeasing leadership than on driving meaningful work. Together, they’ve created a bureaucratic maze of processes that slow down even the most basic tasks like publishing reports or attending conferences. It’s frustrating and demoralizing for those reporting to them, who are left navigating unclear strategies and excessive micromanagement. The Research team, meanwhile, struggles to deliver consistently high-quality data. Outputs are often inaccurate or outdated, which is alarming given this organization’s positioning as a policy think tank. There seems to be a lack of technical rigor or accountability among senior research leads. On the programmatic side, many directors are genuinely well-meaning, but the culture across teams can be deeply toxic. Favoritism runs rampant—your growth and job security often depend less on merit and more on internal politics. If your manager is well-liked by their superior, and they in turn are favored by the chief, you're set. But if you question authority or offer dissenting views, you may find yourself pushed out. Constructive dialogue is discouraged, and there’s little room for innovation or challenge. Performative behavior tends to get rewarded more than actual results. As for HR, it’s hard to pinpoint what they actually manage. Most functions are outsourced to external vendors, yet internal HR continues to operate with the same seniority and salary bands. Regional HRs also appear to show biased behavior, especially in how they respond differently to US-based staff versus local team members—behavior that feels highly inappropriate and inequitable.