Pros
The organisation and role in themselves are good but they are held back by the management style, attitude and lack of integrity of the CEO. The organisation has the potential to do, be and achieve so much more under different management that it is very frustrating to work there if you are passionate to promote sustainable development and have ethical principles.
Cons
The CEO. The CEO’s management style is detrimental to the wellbeing and development of staff and the efficiency, quality and professionalism of the organisation. The CEO is always polite and avoids confrontation but has an underlying lack of consideration or concern for staff, including a lack of consideration for legality regarding workers’ rights. The CEO can be passive-aggressive and manipulative and has lied to staff, the board and members at meetings, but as the CEO finalises the minutes this does not become a problem for the CEO. The CEO does not like to admit fault or apologise. The CEO is a poor communicator and lacks emotional intelligence. There is sometimes inconsistency with what the CEO wants, making this hard to predict, which can be frustrating. Sometimes you’re given the responsibility of a manager, yet other times the CEO treats you like an intern/assistant, which is demoralising. The CEO is very old fashioned, resistant to innovation and IT illiterate (e.g. prints a lot so can work with pen and paper and requires help with basic Excel, pdf, etc. functions and Google searching, so uses MS Word and calculator when other programmes would be more efficient). The CEO works long hours but very inefficiently. The requirement to work in a cost and time inefficient way due to the CEO's dismissal of suggestions for improvement is very frustrating, especially when the CEO often complains of not having the time to do things and used this as an excuse for not knowing basic labour law. The CEO has illegally refused any recuperation to staff for overtime for years and though has recently accepted a minimal form of recuperation, still illegally withholds financial recuperation despite staff insisting that this is not legal. Costs are cut on staff while other time and cost inefficiencies remain for the convenience of the CEO and to preserve the CEO’s very high salary and benefits and unnecessarily expensive office spending and waste. There is a huge pay gap between the CEO and other staff. The CEO is paid above the highest European Commission pay band for EU Projects, while other staff are paid less than the market average for their roles and increasingly less with each staff turnover. The hypocrisy of the CEO often stressing that EPSO does not have the money for other things is infuriating. The CEO employs a deliberate lack of transparency with finances, bordering on financial mismanagement, including with project-specific sponsorship money. The board are aware but too many, including the President, protect the CEO. There is no scrutiny applied to the CEO’s conduct and therefore never any negative consequences for them or justice for their staff. As EPSO is very heavily reliant on EU Projects funding, the CEO pressures staff to spend more time on this than is necessary and complete unnecessary tasks in order to charge for the hours worked. This goes against basic ethics, especially as it is taxpayer’s money. Keeping an honest accounting of time despite increasing pressure is tiring. The organisation promotes and advocates for sustainable development, gender equality and environmental protection in agriculture, forestry, plant science, etc., but the CEO does not seem to personally uphold these progressive values in their work and limits the extent to which other staff can work in a sustainable manner. Several employees reported lack of motivation to the CEO and some developed mental health issues as a direct result of the CEO's management style, including micromanagement and being illegally denied recuperation for overtime. This issue and the issue of the resulting high staff turnover were raised at a board meeting by a sympathetic, dutiful board member, but were quickly dismissed as unimportant by the board and explained away with lies by the CEO. Further complaints were made to the President about the CEO’s conduct and suggestions made for the implementation of organisation Values, including a compliance and whistleblowing policy, in order to improve the CEO’s conduct. However, these were quickly watered down into the idea of publicising that the organisation has some of these values, but without any implementation or evidence framework, which would merely cover up the CEO’s poor conduct. The clear message this sends to staff that their concerns and rights are not considered to be important and that there is not enough will at the management level to change the organisation for the better is very demotivating. It could be a good organisation to work at under different management; however, this is unlikely to change until the CEO retires. I would strongly advise you not to apply for any role at this organisation!