Personal/professional boundaries
Top leadership would often respond to feedback from staff as a personal attack. When employees would bring up known issues or concerns with genuine hope to resolve & create an improved workplace, they were met on more than 1 occasion with reactive statements like "I feel unappreciated for what I have done for you" or "When you come to me with this information I lose sleep over this." - all while tears are flowing & avoiding the actual workplace issue. One of the top leaders has a separate set of public issues, with social media posts that are egotistical, perpetuate a toxic "no sleep" culture, & are cringeworthy at best.
Comprehensive benefits/pay/mission focus
Many of the longtime employees were hired during the recession & in the 6-8 years of recovery the laughable salaries didn’t catch up at the same rate. It became clear that the org was comfortable chasing grants because they were ‘attainable’ - it was never made clear to anyone on staff how funds were allocated because it was feared it would “worry staff.” As programs grew, capacity & support staff did not. This is common in the NP world, but the special kicker here is that the org preaches progressive workplace practices, & has a whole conference dedicated to promoting exactly what they don’t do inside their own house. (See: The Arizona Good Business Summit)
Once when being trained to sell ad spots in their Small Wonders Map they encouraged staff that if they didn’t know much about a business they were trying to make a sale to, to “just lie.”
Trust/promotions
Issues with staff would be repeatedly discussed with other staff by top leadership. It became clear, after staff communicated more across the board, that this tactic was being used to manipulate & control. They claim to be open for feedback & communication but when there was a major executive promotion, senior staff weren’t asked for feedback & review until it was moot & the decision was already clearly made. Staff with more seniority & equivalent experience (women) were not ever given the opportunity to even apply or ask for consideration.
Ethics
When prominent a prominent AZ musician/biz owner was accused of sexual harassment & assault, employees brought attention to it, as the org has supported & partnered with his multiple businesses. Initially they gave approval of taking anything involved with him down. Staff were shocked to see only months (maybe less) later that the org was planning something new with one of his businesses. After bringing this up again, the person in the org who dealt with these matters (who later admitted to not being trained in HR) explained that because it wasn’t proven, we weren’t going to sever ties. A cherry on the crap cake is that this person compared it to a (very publicly known) situation that happened with her spouse being accused of racist remarks while attempting to run for a local government position.
Scapegoating, gaslighting, toxicity
In an attempt to quell growing dissatisfaction & complaints/concerns from staff, the top leadership established a “leadership level” - this group was selected & prompted to step up as department heads & help structure the unwieldy growth pains. This team spent a hefty amount of hours in strategic planning meetings, & was invited to participate in an attempt to organize under the EOS system, implemented and facilitated by a local company. It became very clear when attempting to create an org chart that the top leadership rejected all the main tenets of that operating system because it did not suit their style of leadership & desire to maintain power & control. After spending SO many hours going through that facilitation, which staff assumed was being taken seriously, it was said it was simply “something we wanted to try on.” When valid concerns were brought up in meetings they were seen as “uncharacteristic” (because of what they assumed about a DISC assessment type ) and were often devalued. There was also discouragement of bringing issues to the top if we weren’t prepared to propose how to solve said issue, something that ultimately made staff feel like they were not in a psychologically safe environment.
They’ve also been known to scapegoat employees as the root of their problems, especially after said employee has left (whether on good terms or not) in order to gain favor with the staff that remains. This was proven several times by accounts from current staff and past staff.
All of this does not even cover some of the other emotional abuse & questionable practices that have been experienced by many. In the span of a year or less many lost count of how many staff had come & gone (20+?) Sadly, this org & its top leaders are hardly called out because of their influence. After separation from the org many have learned that several in the community “have a story” - but are (rightfully) too afraid of the rath they would face & social capital they could lose if not in favor with the LFA powers that be.
