Transform Rural India Foundation State Program Manager salaries in India

Likes

The good thing about the company is that they simply copy government data and present it as their own work. They consistently replicate models from other organizations and claim them as original. The people working there are mostly below average, and talented individuals rarely join. Even if they do, they tend to leave within six months due to the lack of opportunities for growth and improvement. If you’re someone who’s good at clerical tasks, has no career ambitions, and are lucky enough to get a decent posting that suits your job role, they essentially pay you to copy government data and schemes.

Dislikes

... no support for employees, no promotion or growth unless you're close to the MD. People come for the salary but remain stuck at the same level for 3-4 years with only inflation-adjusted 5% raises. The company lacks a proper promotion or transfer policy, moving employees around arbitrarily without considering professionalism or family circumstances. For example, women are transferred to unsafe locations without considering the demands of the job or travel requirements. The organization has no coherent culture, strategy, or framework, yet it continues to hire consultants to create fancy reports. They even hired a foreign communications director to project an image of being a high-level NGO, but in reality, none of the leadership has any real intellect, and the associate directors dictate the company based on their own rules, standards, and moods, making it feel like a privately-run entity. The worst part is that an employee attempted suicide, and another died by suicide, but the company suppressed the news and threatened employees not to speak about it, claiming it wasn’t related to the organization. However, the first employee attempted suicide after being repeatedly denied leave by someone leading operations in Uttar Pradesh, who runs the company like his personal property, constantly jeopardizing job security. This person also forced two women to quit—one who was two months pregnant and about to apply for maternity leave, and another who disagreed with his working style and unreasonable demands for working outside office hours. He even brought his wife into the organization. Another team lead in the government vertical operates through personal flattery of bureaucrats, forcing employees to perform clerical tasks in government offices. There is no strategy in the government vertical, just constant appeasement of bureaucrats. I urge everyone to consider multiple factors before joining this organization. The funders have no idea that the work being presented as the company’s own is actually the government's, and large amounts of money are being wasted.

Likes

Just getting funds from international agencies doesn’t give good enough impact and management, they’ve a very poor management policy and they hardly have any policy for using good talent and experience so if you’re useless and you’re in 50s with no expectation to learn then it’s a good place for you. It’s a place where you feel you’ve gone 40 years back in time and the organization work in such slow place like they want to waste fund and not do anything positive. Bill and Melinda Gates should check their funds flow and independently get impact evaluated done. Someone sitting by buttering officers and building relation doesn’t create any impact. System doesn’t get influenced but it impact mental health of employees in government departments.

Dislikes

... then don’t join. They’ve become government partners and also behave like them. Very bad experience and realised very late that I don’t even have growth and don’t even have salary hike. Worst policy is leave deduction, if you take leave on Friday and Monday, they deduct for 4 days. If you take leave on 1st October and 3rd October then they deduct your leave for Gandhi Jayanti. If you take leave for 14th August and then take leave on 16th August then they deduct leave for your National Independence Day too. I’m not joking, this is their policy. Now imagine how they think of employee well being.

Likes

Nothing good, they want their staff in Government Office as Pimps and commission agents. They place their people in Government office without any plan or agenda setting just based on buttering and getting a letter. But in those office you’re just another clerk.

Dislikes

Management is lost, they don’t know what they want to do. They pay huge salary to associate directors who are most useless in the company. They don’t come from any recognized universities or from professional experience of working with a reputed organization. If you try to show talent they feel insecure. Toxic culture, running organization on mood of Bosses, no transfer policy, no work recognition, no performance assessment, just buttering of people and if your boss feels it’s good, then you’re in good books. Effort and talent are not recognised. Government intervention should be structured and employees should be placed with good positioning instead of just buttering the officer. need to make some policy for transfer and placement, can’t force people to stay away from home. Management has rubbish leave policy as leave taken on Friday and Monday will make even holidays count. Sounds like a British age policy, sounds like authoritative and forced workplace. Stop branding only your high buttering employees and get a real health expert in health and real education specialist in education.

Likes

They pay well and one can get good exposure working with government.

Dislikes

Zero mentorship or support from manager. Toxic work environment with zero learning. They just mine data from government and present to funders as thier own work. Also some managers are working as commission agents in government tenders and involved in corruption.

Likes

TRI approach overlay idealistic and disconnected from the practical realities of development work. Transforming rural communities requires more than just passion and adventure it demand clear strategies, accountability and measurable result. The claim of a non-hierarchical, delibrative decision-making process may sound appealing, but in practice, such systems often leads to confusion, inefficiency and power struggles. Lofty ideals like "community-first sprit" and "absolute transparency" are meaning less without concrete mechanisms to ensure they translate into actionable impact. Professionals are not drawn by vague promises of independence or 'good packages'. they seek clarity, structure and tangible outcomes. The vision of TRI risks promoting chaos and frustration rather than delivering real changes.

Dislikes

I would not recommend this organisation as a workplace. Leadership are full of biases, favouritism and mismanagement.