SHE-CAN Reviews

The former CEO was removed due to creating a hostile work environment in the organization and targeting some staff with harassment. She was put into a Chief Philanthropy Officer role and prohibited from managing any staff due to her pervasive mistreatment and hostility toward her staff. She made huge mistakes in fiscal management pursuing pet projects with negative ROI. She created a toxic culture by mistreating the SHE-CAN staff at every level and did not allow people to do their jobs because of constant micromanagement, redoing everything and making it worse. She has a hard time understanding basic concepts, yet micromanages people like she's an expert. She is not and is firmly stuck in the 1990s. Barbara Bylenga is a poor leader who commands no respect because she grossly disrespected her staff, vendors and some scholars. She lacks vision, is unorganized, frenetic, does not understand fundraising or financials, while always being condescending and mean. She needs to be exited all the way out.

While the dedication and support of my colleagues at SHE-CAN was truly inspiring, the overall work environment has been the most toxic I have ever experienced. The unpredictability and, at times, hostility in interactions with the CEO create a constant atmosphere of stress and unease. Instead of trusting her team’s expertise, she prioritizes her own opinions above all else, leading to excessive micromanagement and a stifling lack of collaboration. The absence of a stable and supportive workplace culture makes each day increasingly challenging. The CEO’s insistence on doing things her way creates significant resistance to new ideas, particularly when it comes to the structure of the scholar program. Rather than acknowledging the real challenges fresh graduates face in developing professional skills, she fixates on rigid personal ideals. When addressing a room full of people about the scholars' return rate, she stated, “They looked me in the eye and told me they would go back,” ignoring the reality that leadership development is a process, not an immediate outcome. A more flexible and realistic approach would better serve both the scholars and the long-term impact of the program. Compounding these issues is a disturbing lack of cultural sensitivity within the organization. Scholars are often reduced to stereotypes, their identities and stories shaped to fit leadership’s perception of what will appeal to donors. Inappropriate comments about them are common, including the CEO making decisions on event speakers based on superficial criteria—dismissing candidates by saying their English isn’t “good enough” or “you can’t understand her.” This approach diminishes the intelligence, strength, and accomplishments of these young women, who deserve to share their experiences authentically. The combination of a toxic CEO who is resistance to progress and cultural insensitivity creates an environment that is neither empowering nor sustainable. Rather than fostering true leadership and growth, the organization imposes rigid, unrealistic expectations that fail to account for the complexities of professional and personal development. A shift toward inclusivity, adaptability, and genuine respect for both employees and scholars would not only improve workplace morale but also better serve the mission of the organization.