Pros
On the surface, the mission and goals of Stand Together are virtuous and purposeful. And unlike most nonprofits, they operate without economical constraints. In theory this should make mission-driven work and it’s impact more accessible. On the same card, the compensation and benefits are stellar.
Cons
Where to begin.. I think the most toxic quality is they hide behind their culture (they call this ‘MBM’ or market based management) as a system and scapegoat for literally every decision. Because the tenets of this culture philosophy are highly flexible and subjective it usually leads to a weaponization over proper application. This may seem moot, as most companies have culture strawmen. But here you will find it impedes every decision, it taxes the already constrained matrix of their organization. The second red flag is leadership, especially the C-suite and Vice Presidents. Cronyism is rife in Stand Together. There is rampant tribalism and it feels like a bad coming-of-age film where your constantly trying to impress and get-in with these executives. Again, this isn’t an uncommon trait in large corporations but there is sincere conflict of interests and those at the top mask their fallacies and errors by pointing the finger and throwing more junior team members under the bus. And that’s another thing I’ll say here, for a nonprofit organization someone should look closely at who they outsource work to and the historical affiliations with these partners. Let’s just say $ is going from left pocket to right pocket to the tune of millions of dollars a year. Last note, they are pushing an “in office culture” despite nearly 50% of the employees being remote and a vast majority of the organization being against “return to office” ~ but in a very top down fashion the boomers sitting in the C-suite refuse to acknowledge the advice of their peers and co workers. This is all because they signed a giant commercial lease on new headquarters and are now claiming “culture” is the driver of an in person migration.
