Great Mission, Toxic Leadership Culture.
Pros
Great mission supporting service members and their families. Many dedicated employees who genuinely care about the community and work hard despite limited resources. Opportunities to develop skills across multiple disciplines due to small team sizes and broad responsibilities.
Cons
The department suffered from serious leadership instability and a noticeable decline in morale after a leadership change. New departmental leadership created an environment built on distrust, micromanagement, and fear rather than collaboration or support. Instead of taking time to understand the team, existing processes, or institutional knowledge, leadership appeared to come in with assumptions already made and treated long-term employees as problems rather than assets. Compensation was not handled fairly or transparently. I spent 12 years with the organization and never received a raise beyond standard cost-of-living adjustments, while others in the same office appeared to receive raises more frequently. After I left, my position was posted at a noticeably higher rate than what I had been earning. A small number of people within the office seemed more focused on self-preservation than teamwork, often taking opportunities to shift blame or throw others under the bus instead of solving problems constructively. Concerns were not handled objectively or professionally. In my experience, leadership seemed more interested in proving a point than getting to the truth. Subject matter experts were frequently ignored, even when their input could have prevented confusion, wasted time, and poor decisions. The culture became one where employees felt they had to protect themselves instead of feeling trusted to do their jobs. Long-standing contributions and years of dedicated service were quickly overshadowed by suspicion, poor leadership judgment, and a lack of meaningful recognition.
