Pros
- A few colleagues are genuinely supportive and collaborative. - Very few are competent - Some important projects with potential impact in health systems.
Cons
- Most directors seem to hold their positions less because of competence and more because they were there early on, or because Muso offers them titles they likely wouldn’t obtain elsewhere. Many have only ever worked at Muso and therefore haven’t developed the broader experience or skills typically expected at the director level. - There is a widespread lack of professionalism in day-to-day interactions, with underlying disrespect. This sometimes even includes sexist remarks disguised in jokes. Even when unintentional, they are still unprofessional and harmful, and when raised, they are too often dismissed as “cultural.” But there is no culture that excuses unprofessionalism. The organization urgently needs to invest in training staff on communication, both in how to speak to one another and how to write professional emails. - There is a deeply rooted white saviorism culture. Communities are "seen" primarily in terms of suffering and misery rather than simply being recognized as living in poverty and facing solvable challenges. This framing creates an exaggerated narrative (internally during staff meetings) of desperation and helplessness, instead of one of dignity and resilience. Such behavior is sometimes misperceived as “passion” or “commitment,” which makes it harder to challenge. The result is a problematic dynamic that remains unacknowledged and unaddressed. -There are absolutely no opportunities for career progression. Leadership announced a freeze on both salary increases and title promotions for over two years, yet still made selective exceptions in a highly inequitable way. This has strongly demotivated staff, especially high performers (some have left), and undermined trust in management. Many employees remain only because of the broader sector crisis or the flexibility to work from home. As a result, top talent has become completely disengaged, while underperformers go unchecked. This reinforced by the fact that yearly performance reviews have lost credibility, since both reviewers and staff know they carry little weight, because promotions are off the table, and dismissals are rare, as management focuses on “retention” after significant departures and so the priority is turnover reduction over accountability. The overall effect is stagnation and organizational wins tend to reflect the bare minimum rather than the true potential.
