employer cover photo
employer logo
employer logo

Physicians for Human Rights

Is this your company?

Physicians for Human Rights Reviews

3.0

48% would recommend to a friend

(40 total reviews)

Jennifer Sime

77% approve of CEO

44% positive business outlook

Physicians for Human Rights has an employee rating of 3.0 out of 5 stars, based on 40 company reviews on Glassdoor which indicates that most employees have an average working experience there. The Physicians for Human Rights employee rating is in line with the average (within 1 standard deviation) for employers within the Non-profit and NGO industry (3.7 stars).

Reviews by job title

40 reviews
1.0
12 Jan 2018

Stay Far Away

Anonymous employee
Recommend
CEO approval
Business outlook

Pros

With a few notable exceptions, the people at PHR are what will keep you sane for your short stint at the organization. PHR has found a way to hire some of the most exceptionally qualified and decent people you will have the pleasure of working with.

Cons

I’d like to first flag that the Research Associate review dated October 2017 on this site is fake. The beauty of working at a small organization is that you get to know your coworkers pretty well. I knew the people who held this position and they without a doubt did not write this review. It’s fake—and there will be more. If you are a potential candidate, do your research and contact an actual human being (outside of management) who worked at PHR before applying. The fact that management wrote this review, or asked someone to write it on their behalf, sums up the organization. It’s smoke and mirrors. Management measures success by Twitter followers and dollars, as opposed to actual impact, programmatic (let alone organizational) stability, or lasting partnerships. I’d also like to flag that the Chief Development Officer, who wrote such a glowing review of PHR, resigned…after three months. You don’t have the right to say that you can’t imagine anyone (current or past) writing a negative review when you last at an organization for one quarter. Their first week was the staff retreat where, unlike what they claim, management tried their hardest to avoid addressing organizational issues by lumping them into a discussion on vicarious trauma. Insulting for staff actually grappling with vicarious trauma to say the least, but done specifically so the ED and management could avoid discussing any specific issue in depth. The strategic plan mentioned has still not been completed and this would be fine if it was management’s first stab at putting together a strategic plan, but it’s not. They can’t draft a strategic plan because management (the ED) does not have the requisite knowledge or experience of the human rights field to know what to do, let alone how to do it. Management has no clear vision or mission for the organization, which they would like you to believe is normal and how all well-governed, functioning nonprofits operate. As a result, the organization has no strategic plan and goes into each year without a clear idea of its programmatic goals or priorities. They instead follow the whims of donors for a year or two before funding runs out. The CDO review does bring up a good point—if you’re friends with the ED you are treated well. However, unless you are in this small cadre of trusted confidents—a group of roughly three people who have carved out a cushy existence by saying yes or having connections, you will be treated poorly and eventually leave or be pushed out for daring to have integrity, morals, or the desire to have a life outside of your job. Until there’s a change in leadership there is no reason to join this organization unless you want to set your career back a couple of years. There are many organizations working in the field that are more deserving of the exceptionally qualified staff who are fooled into taking positions at PHR.

1.0
21 Apr 2018

Help! Everyone is leaving!

Anonymous employee
Recommend
CEO approval
Business outlook

Pros

The mandate of the organization is amazing and a much needed niche in the current human rights climate. Many of my colleagues are wonderful ... those that are left, that is (see below).

Cons

Where to start? A complete lack of expertise at the leadership level has lead to the organization hemorrhaging staff, in particular from the program side. And when I say a lack of expertise, I mean substantively (no one at the leadership level has human rights expertise), but also in terms of fundraising, management know-how, financial processes, and basic how-to-run a not-for-profit know-how. The place is running on fumes. If anyone were to start digging, they'd find unorthodox (unethical?) accounting, dangerously fluid budgets with enormous sums mysteriously disappearing mostly because of incompetence, opaque decision-making processes (or essentially top-down decision-making on the most minute details), a huge pay differential between leadership and those who actually do the work (we pay more for our executive director's monthly parking bill than junior staff are offered for a raise to bring them up to industry standard), and deep warranted mistrust and tension between various parts of the organization. Everyone is pretty much in a dysfunctional relationship with the ED, including the rest of the mangement team who seem to tip-toe around her whims and refuse to take responsibility for throwing junior staff under the bus to save their own skin. People are (unsurprisingly) leaving in droves. I can't wait to get out myself.

1.0
28 Sept 2017

Great staff, terrible management

Anonymous employee
Recommend
CEO approval
Business outlook

Pros

Wonderful, smart and supportive colleagues with interesting backgrounds who want to do good work. There is a lot to learn from the experts among the staff. Dedicated external partners as well.

Cons

Those wonderful colleagues never stay for long, and external partners are often left in the dark and disrespected. This is a human rights organization that doesn't much care about human rights work unless it brings money or attention, and even then the work itself is seen as a means to the end ($$), not the end itself. This is depressing for staff, who would all be embarrassed if their partners found out how little management really cares about the work they do. It's hard to accurately convey how terribly run the organization is. There is no vision at all because there is no one with the requisite experience or knowledge at the top. Instead, staff are micromanaged by leadership who refuse to take responsibility or delegate authority, and so decisions are basically never made, which means that nothing can get done. It starts at the top with the ED, whose management skills and knowledge of the issues are nonexistent. Practically, there are basic problems like lack of decision-making & budget clarity, and no transparency on salaries and promotions. These are not impossible problems to solve, but they have endured because the ED actually prefers this state of affairs: opacity and lack of clear standards means that there is zero accountability (someone should also take a close look at the books!). While staff have been pointing out these problems and suggesting solutions for years, there is no expectation that the toxic culture will change. Because of all of this, morale is extremely low and turnover is high. At this point almost 50% of the org leaves in a year. The high turnover rate seriously damages program work, but the ED has explicitly stated that she is unconcerned with it, and believes it to be normal. Meanwhile, partners get whiplash as staff are constantly coming and going, and the organization is forever re-making the same decisions and the same mistakes. It's not uncommon here for people to stay for less than a year, which is really astounding. Problems with exploitation of staff (as noted in other reviews) are also very real. PHR burns through junior staff who are expected to work far outside their job descriptions, take on traumatizing material with little credit or control, and who are unable to afford the health interventions the job requires. Then these people leave and the cycle starts again. Finally, there is a disturbing lack of racial diversity at PHR, and zero commitment from management to address or even acknowledge the problem, despite multiple staff having raised it.

Viewing 1 - 3 of 40 Reviews

Glassdoor has 59 Physicians for Human Rights reviews submitted anonymously by Physicians for Human Rights employees. Read employee reviews and ratings on Glassdoor to decide if Physicians for Human Rights is right for you.