PILPG Reviews

I am not sure where to start here. I really do not like being negative about a past employer, my general rule is that if you aren't having a good time then it’s just a bad fit for you personally. However, there is an exception to every rule and this is it. This organization has the potential to be awesome, but it fails in so many ways that result in it being difficult to work for. The following were the most prevalent examples while I was there: 1. A lot of filler work is given to 'pro bono' staff and law firms so the organization can provide a certain number of hours of free work under US government grants. Furthermore, the organization misrepresents having ‘clients’. The work comprises of grant projects done with partners under the grants. The organization does NGO development and policy grant work, not legal/client work. 2. The work environment is difficult to thrive in. There have been consistent reports of certain groups of staff facing verbal and psychological abuse from management. There is a tendency to be secretive. Furthermore, senior management places importance on some staff over others which can be demoralizing. Senior management also avoids guidance/constructive criticism/confrontation. On the rare occasions senior management confront someone it is not done in a way that is constructive. 3. There is a discrepancy in how the programs are treated. The summer program is specifically geared towards Ivy League law students and is tightly organized, and a lot of attention and energy is given to it. In contrast, the law fellow program (law graduates who have sat and passed the bar and are looking to launch their careers) is not an official program. It more resembles that of a full-time intern with little direction or guidance. 4. Management (all of the vice-presidents and two out of four senior directors) work remotely. Staff, paid and unpaid alike, have no physical access to their supervisors. Furthermore, management does not see the daily difficulties suffered by staff because they are never present and thus cannot support their staff or make the necessary changes. One of those changes is the need to have management based in the DC office. Management communicate by exchanging hundreds of emails a day with staff, this results in a lot of miscommunication and frustrated and poorly toned emails. 5. There are no benefits, and no healthcare/dental. You are not supported if you prioritize a work/life balance and like to keep evenings and weekends to yourself. You need to ask weeks in advance to take time off. Adding to the resentment is that senior management makes the decision on whether you can take leave or not, or work from home or not, yet they do not feel it is necessary to be in the office themselves – they are allowed to work remotely every day. 6. The organization runs off free student labor. There are maybe 20 paid staff, and about 45-50 unpaid. When there is a break in semesters the remaining staff are plunged into a month or so of being highly understaffed and totally disorganized. 7. A much higher emphasis is placed on image rather than substance. Students and graduates must participate in “strat-com” and creating a “brand” for themselves. Not enough value is placed on these people wanting to do substantive work.

Though I only spent a short time at PILPG, it was abundantly clear that upper level management does not value or even respect mid-level management or the operations staff. Paul Williams, the President, prides himself on developing young, dynamic professionals and yet does not include any of their names on the publications that they drafted, instead choosing to take 100% of the credit for something that he lightly edited. He speaks poorly of the staff behind their backs while never giving feedback or scheduling performance reviews. He tells everyone to “read his mind,” which is impossible given his many mood swings throughout the course of a single day. His comments about the staff also betray his opinion that staff are easily replaceable, and voices this opinion if they disagree with him on anything, including operations, hiring, program management, or even the news. In addition, Paul Williams has shiny object syndrome. He often takes on new initiatives at the suggestion of an intern or one of his many volunteers from American University’s Washington College of Law and implements them in a half-baked way. His favorite initiatives are those in which he is portrayed as an all-knowing expert on international law as well as a benevolent mentor to young professionals (for example all of PILPG’s Facebook Live posts). All of his strategic communications initiatives, which he sells as professional development opportunities for volunteers, are undertaken solely for his own self-aggrandizement. Paul Williams’ management and communication styles are disorganized and he often plays favorites, choosing to believe that this tactic incentivizes better performance from his staff and volunteers. Instead, this engenders resentment among mid-level and operations staff, and encourages poor management practices from the rest of the senior staff. The rest of senior management has never worked outside of PILPG and has therefore normalized and internalized his demented way of thinking. Adding to this dynamic is the fact that most of the senior staff is spread out across the United States, and very infrequently communicate with each other directly. Many of them use their subordinates to communicate indirectly with each other, leading to many miscommunications and passive aggressive emails that pummel the unfortunate middle man. Unsurprisingly, there is a huge rate of turnover and nearly all of those who leave depart resentful of the organization and their time spent there. As a temporary employee with a fixed end date, I had the unique opportunity to see the dysfunction of the organization without having to feel the full effects of working there long-term. I would caution anyone looking for employment opportunities at this organization to come in with an exit strategy.