Let's talk about the myth of being a tough interviewer.
So you're a tough interviewer. You automatically go on the offensive in any interview setting, some would even call your style "on the attack." You are confrontational, basically calling bulls**t on the candidate you have in front of you. Are they sure they really belong in front of you with this background? What's missing? You routinely attack what's missing in the first 10 minutes of the interviewer, satisfied you're doing your job of preventing people (who don't really have what it takes) to join your company.
The tough interviewer could also be called the negative or confrontational interviewer. It's most common tenured employees who don't feel any risk of alienating candidates. If this interviewing style is you, you don't build a lot of dialog with the candidate. You just go negative and watch them squirm.
How's being a negative interviewer working out for you?
Great, you say.
The people around you probably beg to differ.
You see, your hard interviewing style is costing your company candidates. In a peak economy, good to great candidates have a lot choices in where their next job comes from. It's likely that if a candidate made it all the way to you that they are good or great. They're in front of you because they have already been vetted and someone believes they might be a hire for your company.
And you bomb them with negative and hard vibes. Damn.
The path for the most effective interviewers is simple - selling your company and yourself as an leader or peer while getting what you need to evaluate the candidate. Are you an effective interviewer by this definition?
--No. You’re hard on candidates. No one wants to work with you or for you.
--Maybe. You’re neutral enough not to hurt your company. But that's probably not good enough in today's competitive hiring landscape.
--Yes, Absolutely. You get great stuff to evaluate the candidate, asking tough questions but framing that dialog in a way that makes them think you're on their side and rooting for them.
If you've ever prided yourself for being a "hard" interviewer, time for a little self-evaluation. If candidates leave your interview thinking that the session went awful or worse yet - they wouldn't want to work for you or with you, you've got a problem. You're net negative to the employment brand.
You're better than that. You can still ask the hard questions, but cadence, taking the time to build positive dialog and demeanor means everything.
You can do this. Help us out.
Is the number of men who are afraid to mentor women really on the rise in the #metoo era? As crazy as it seems, a new report from Sheryl Sandberg’s LeanIn Organization says this is the case. Here’s what the report says, we'll discuss after the rundown:
--Their male bosses are avoiding 1:1 time with them, for fear of how being alone with a woman will look.
--This is based on new research released by Sheryl Sandberg's LeanIn organization which finds that "60% of male managers in the United States are afraid to do a one-on-one activity, and that the number of men that feel that way is on the rise since last year.
--Sandberg says senior male managers are also hesitating when it comes to business travel with their female employees as well as 1:1 dinners and that this number is on the rise since last year, up 33%.
--The obvious concern is already low mentoring rates when it comes to senior male managers mentoring women - and those rates dropping even further.
--This SurveyMonkey/Lean In online poll was conducted February 22-March 1, 2019, among a national sample of 5,182 adults in the U.S. ages eighteen and older. The modeled error estimate is +/- 2 percentage points. Unless otherwise noted, all statistics are from the February 22-March 1, 2019 SurveyMonkey poll. Data for all surveys have been weighted for age, race, sex, education, and geography using the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey to reflect the demographic composition of the United States age eighteen and over.
How do you feel about that? I'm a guy, which means I should be careful, but I'm probably part of the problem if I'm afraid to share my opinion.
My advice to the men who aren't comfortable mentoring women is pretty simple. That vibe you're feeling in the #metoo era doesn't have much to do with the movement - it has everything to do with you.
If you've noticed women acting differently, being skeptical of you, etc.- it's probably time to take a hard look at your tendencies in meetings that include both male and female colleagues, direct reports and underlings.
You might be a brotastic mess. We get it, you're a guy. But if you're in meetings and all your small talk is with the other guys, that probably naturally flows into the work conversations when the meeting actually starts and work conversations are being executed. How often do you ask a woman in those meetings the subject matter expert over a man? How often do you make sure that a woman who's quiet and not participating gets a professional, clean shot at being a part of the conversation?
The answer is that a some of you don't do that. As a result, woman are likely to be a bit distant professionally from you. You feel that, and make the assumption that the distance is related to #metoo. Which leads you to report that you're really not comfortable with the whole 1/1 thing in the #metoo era.
Which is weak.
The answer is more engagement with the women on your team during the normal course of business. You're responsible for the distance you feel. Being comfortable in a 1/1 is easy - just go out of your way to engage with the women on your team during the normal course of business, and 1/1's will feel like an extension of that.
I'm far from perfect, but I know this. If you're afraid to do a 1/1, I can look at your meetings, conversations and more in public space and see subtle differences in how you engage men vs. women.
I'm just a guy. But if you defer shooting the sh*t with me in preference of engaging with our female co-workers before our meeting starts, you'll be well on your way to becoming comfortable with 1/1's with female.
Stop being creepy in your assumed stance of avoiding being creepy.
I'm always fascinated by the choices that companies and leadership teams make when they create company values.
The challenge, of course, is to cut through the noise and get to what's real for the employees who work for your organization. To me, values can be aspirational, but are always best served by words that describe what makes the high performers in your organization different/successful, regardless of position.
Of course, it can go the other way as well. Leadership teams can do a great job of making company values actionable and representative of culture, but the words can mean too much - at times justifying negative behaviors.
It's a slippery slope. You want to find the sweet spot in the middle - actionable words that don't create rationalization for behaviors that seem counter to accepted people practices.
Need an example? I thought you would never ask... Let's take a look at the company values of Uber, both back in the old days under CEO and co-founder Travis Kalanick, and then look at the current values under leadership of Dara Khosrowshahi, who was brought in to provide adult leadership when the company was spiraling in multiple controversies brought on by cultural failings of the earlier leadership.
First, the Uber company values under Kalanick:
Customer obsession (Start with what is best for the customer.)
Make magic (Seek breakthroughs that will stand the test of time.)
Big bold bets (Take risks and plant seeds that are five to ten years out.)
Inside out (Find the gap between popular perception and reality.)
Champion’s mind-set (Put everything you have on the field to overcome adversity and get Uber over the finish line.)
Optimistic leadership (Be inspiring.)
Superpumped (Ryan Graves’s original Twitter proclamation after Kalanick replaced him as CEO; the world is a puzzle to be solved with enthusiasm.)
Be an owner, not a renter (Revolutions are won by true believers.)
Meritocracy and toe-stepping (The best idea always wins. Don’t sacrifice truth for social cohesion and don’t hesitate to challenge the boss.)
Let builders build (People must be empowered to build things.)
Always be hustlin’ (Get more done with less, working longer, harder, and smarter, not just two out of three.)
Celebrate cities (Everything we do is to make cities better.)
Be yourself (Each of us should be authentic.)
Principled confrontation (Sometimes the world and institutions need to change in order for the future to be ushered in.)
Damn. I love values that show what it takes to be successful at a company, but you can kind of see where it could go off the rails. More on that in a second.
Next, the current Uber company values under the all-grown up Khosrowshahi:
We build globally, we live locally. We harness the power and scale of our global operations to deeply connect with the cities, communities, drivers and riders that we serve, every day.
We are customer obsessed. We work tirelessly to earn our customers’ trust and business by solving their problems, maximizing their earnings or lowering their costs. We surprise and delight them. We make short-term sacrifices for a lifetime of loyalty.
We celebrate differences. We stand apart from the average. We ensure people of diverse backgrounds feel welcome. We encourage different opinions and approaches to be heard, and then we come together and build.
We do the right thing. Period.
We act like owners. We seek out problems and we solve them. We help each other and those who matter to us. We have a bias for action and accountability. We finish what we start and we build Uber to last. And when we make mistakes, we’ll own up to them.
We persevere. We believe in the power of grit. We don’t seek the easy path. We look for the toughest challenges and we push. Our collective resilience is our secret weapon.
We value ideas over hierarchy. We believe that the best ideas can come from anywhere, both inside and outside our company. Our job is to seek out those ideas, to shape and improve them through candid debate, and to take them from concept to action.
We make big bold bets. Sometimes we fail, but failure makes us smarter. We get back up, we make the next bet, and we go!
See the difference? Wow.
The values from Kalanick's time that I've highlighted note fairly aggressive values that champion assertiveness, machismo and the confrontation that was really the genesis for Uber getting off the ground. Let us not forget the amount of confrontation Uber was taking on with almost every city as they launched their service. They truly begged forgiveness and were the barbarians at the gate. It's only natural that this spilled over into the values and into the culture. Of course, that was a choice - they effectively hard coded that macho vibe into the culture, and as we saw later it became a shitshow of harassment suits, bullying, etc.
Could they have pivoted on the values once they saw the negative behaviors inside the company? Of course they could have. But that type of pivot means you can't have a founder-driven cult of personality.
Exit Kalanick, enter Khosrowshahi. The second set of values are from a grown up company. The words are softer. They're reflective of a pivot in values for a company that lost it's way, but also reflective of a company where the tough founder-driven stuff has already been done.
Could Khosrowshahi have grown Uber from scratch with this cultural DNA? Nope. Should Kalanick pivoted his culture once market share had been obtained and his values began to be a liability? Yep.
Welcome to the goody room of "words matter". Nothing is easy when it comes to using values to drive culture.
I recently dropped a post titled "Is Corrective Action a Death Sentence?", which explored the fact that all too often, corrective action/progressive discipline is the beginning of the end. When an employee gets that document, all too often they have the opinion they can't save their job.
Of course, it doesn't have to be that way. What if we entered into the corrective action world actually
expecting that the employee could make it? That's the way it should be in my eyes. Of course, that means a couple of different things:
expecting that the employee could make it? That's the way it should be in my eyes. Of course, that means a couple of different things:
1--Our companies have to go into any type of corrective action plan thinking the employee can make it, with the right type of support.
2--The employee in question has to want to raise their performance to meet the requirements of your plan - not always the case.
3--No one can act surprised if the employee makes it.
Which brings us to the garden variety corrective action/progressive discipline plan. Here's a couple of things to think about:
--It's not over just because you "wrote them up". Identifying what the performance is and why it's not great is only half the battle.
--The other half of the battle? Actually telling them what they need to do to get off the plan.
What's acceptable performance look like? Too often corrective action/progressive discipline documents don't describe what performance that meets expectations looks like. That's a miss.
So if you're going to do corrective action/progressive discipline the right way, you have to provide a path where they are off the plan. Most of us don't do that. We're just taking a "step".
If you're different than that, you probably should consider renaming what you call corrective action/progressive discipline at your company. I know what you're thinking - just because I call it something else doesn't mean anything has changed - and you're right.
I'm only telling you to change what you call it if you're actually open to someone getting their performance together and coming "off'" the plan. By all means, if you're just taking steps, keep doing what your doing. I hope the corrective action/progressive discipline process goes well for you.
But, if you're doing it differently and providing the aforementioned path, you should rename it. Here's some real options, all with elements of truth in them:
--Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) - Frequently used by sales teams with hard numbers to back it up, the ole' PIP means what it says. Do this, and you're good. Don't do this, and we probably can't keep you.
--Back on Track Plan - This name for the plan does what it says it's going to do. You're off track. We need you on track. Here's the plan to do it.
--Individual Development Plan (IDP) - I know, I know. This is usually centered around true employee development in the L&D space. But if you don't currently have IDPs as part of your human capital stack, this name is available to you for to use for performance situations.
If you had the exact right culture, you could also use naming conventions like the "Get Them Off Your Back Plan", which is 100% honest but likely way too cheeky for the seriousness of what's in front of you.
The bottom line is this - if you don't have corrective action that shows the path to get off the plan, you're signaling a lot of bad things. I understand those bad things are likely to happen in a lot of circumstances, but aren't we better than that?
Change the name if you're willing to work on it and provide clarity in feedback to those that are struggling in your organization. Keep it as is if you're not - don't destroy the opportunity for others.
Short post today about an important topic.
Is Corrective Action a Death Sentence?
First, definitions for some of my readers who aren't HR pros. Corrective Action is a formal process where you tell an employee, usually in a written document that is delivered in a formal meeting with a witness - that their performance is below standards and unless they improve, they likely will be removed from the company in time.
Corrective Action is usually a three to four step process in most companies. It's designed to reduce legal liability in firing someone, even in "at-will" employment environments.
Back to the question - Is Corrective Action a Death Sentence?
Well, that depends Sparky - what type of manager are you anyway?
Here's what corrective action means to the players involved:
The Company - "the employee in question isn't going to make it."
The Employee him/herself - "I need to look for another job."
Who's missing? Oh yeah... The manager. What corrective action means to the manager depends on what type of manager you are:
The manager as coach - to this type of manager, corrective action is just a escalated tool to show an employee they've been coaching that things are esclating.
The manager as bureaucrat - this type of manager isn't a coach and may in fact be a bit of a coward. He/she hasn't really coached the employee from the heart, so when they show up with a formal corrective action document, the employee feels like he needs a lawyer. Of course, they don't have that right.
Again, back to the question - Is Corrective Action a Death Sentence?
Corrective Action is never a death sentence to the manager who's an effective coach. That manager is going to keep coaching for improvement and wants the employee to recover. They've used corrective action to show the urgency and hope is turns around. Unfortunately, to all other types of managers, corrective action IS a death sentence - because if you aren't actively coaching, your struggling employee has no shot at turning it around.
Which one are you?
Referrals - We love them in the talent world.
Ideally, referrals are made by employees/team members who understand the culture we've created at our company, and only refer the best in their network to us. That's generally true, and even if there's a few referral spammers in your company, we're better off with referrals than without them.
You know what types of referrals we hate and are suspicious of?
THE REFERRAL FROM SOMEONE IN OUR ORGANIZATION WE DON'T LIKE.
If you've got enough experience in the recruiting/team building game, you've been there before. You've got an open spot on your team, and you're doing your normal recruiting game. Then it happens.
Rick, a guy you detest, sends you a referral and vouches for the candidate.
Damn. That's the last thing you needed. But the intensity of your discomfort is directed by the following determination:
--The candidate isn't good. AH HAH! Rick is clueless. Order has been restored to the universe.
--The candidate is really, really good. Whoops! Shit just got complicated.
Why does the candidate being good make it problematic? Well, you hate Rick. That means the following things are in play:
1--If you don't interview a great candidate, you're the problem, not Rick. That's never been a part of the narrative you had related to your relationship with Rick.
2--If you interview the great referral from Rick and don't hire them, it gives Rick an avenue to criticize the selection you do make.
3--If you interview the candidate and hire them, have you just hired someone sympathetic to Rick when he's kind of been your nemesis during your tenure at ACME.com. That seems like it might be problematic.
All of these things go through our mind when we get a referral from someone in our organization we don't like. The blind spot is simply to ignore the referral, because you won't engage with a person you don't respect and trust. But if you do that, you're playing small. You're better than that.
The real talent magnets understand that quality internal referrals from sworn enemies or simply people you don't like are GIFTS. You should absolutely interview them and hire them if they're the best person for the job.
Whether you simply interview or actually hire the quality referral from a known enemy inside your company, you're playing chess - not checkers - with your engagement with this type of candidate.
Mine the candidate for info about Rick. You may learn they don't know Rick as well as you thought they did. But if they do, be sure and drop some details to Rick about your conversation. It's fun to watch Rick be a little bit uncomfortable.
Can you hire this candidate? That really depends how good you are at your job. If you're great at your job, they're going to enjoy being part of your team and Rick's not a threat. Rick may actually end up hating the fact that he gave you a great referral, which is a gift in itself.
Great referrals from sources you hate are an opportunity. Play chess, not checkers.
I’ll give you $10,000 and 3 months of pay if you quit today and do something else.
Who’s interested? Everyone!
If the whole “we’ll pay you to quit” sounds familiar, it was the rarified air of the HR culture darling, Zappos.com. We loved Zappos back in the day for a variety of things, including their offer to pay new hires to quit early in their tenure. Here’s how the thinking went – if you’re not sure this is for you, we’ll pay you to eliminate the cultural misfit and just go.
The Zappos offer to pay you to quit was child’s play. Amazon saw that offer and said, “Hold my beer.”
In case you missed it, Amazon was in the news again late last week with a Godfather offer (you can’t refuse) to employees designed to create momentum to build the delivery capability needed to meet its future needs. The offer was this - 10K and 3 month’s pay for any employee who will quit and start a franchised delivery business under the Amazon partnership umbrella. Here’s the details of the announcement:
The company announced they will pay two to three months salary and $10,000 in startup costs if an employee will quit their post and start a package delivery service. The company wants to make good on its promise to Prime members to cut delivery time in half from two days to one.
The offer is open to most part-time and full-time Amazon employees, including warehouse workers who pack and ship orders. The employee still has to be accepted into this program, and the company did not share how many people they think will apply and be accepted.
Newly anointed entrepreneurs can lease blue vans with the Amazon smile logo on it. The company estimates someone who owns 20 to 40 delivery vans can potentially earn $300,000 a year.
You have to admit, that’s kind of cool. But it’s a trap for many of the Amazon employees who hear the offer and think being their own boss is a path that’s for them.
That’s because the business those employees would be entering under the Amazon partnership umbrella isn’t a delivery business, it’s actually a people management business. CBS news did the math last year and reported that to make low six figure as an owner of this business, you’d need to employ at least 20 full-time equivalents per year.
Danger!! (Siren sound in the background)
Not sure whether the offer is for you, Amazon employees? Fear not, because I’m here with an uber-simple 5-item questionnaire designed to help you understand whether you should quit your Amazon job and start a delivery business once you’ve been accepted into the Amazon “lease some vans and start a business” incubator.
Answer the following questions “yes” or “no”:
- Have you ever thought your manager was a complete dipshit related to business savvy?
- Do you actively avoid dealing with some people at work?
- Have you ever been asked to be part of an interview process for open positions and thought, “I’m too busy” or “that’s not my job”?
- Do you ever vent to your spouse for long periods of time about co-workers?
- Have you ever had a co-worker vent to you and refused to get involved in whatever issue they had, either directly (telling them you didn’t want to get involved) or indirectly (waiting for them to finish their rant and excusing yourself as softly as you could)?
Score your answers in the following way:
--0-1“yes” answers: This Amazon offer might be for you.
--2-3 “yes” answers: You shouldn’t quit your day job. You’ll likely start well in your Amazon delivery franchise, only to grow disenchanted, look back and see year one was by far the best year of your delivery business.
--4-5 “yes” answers: Run away. You’re going to burn the f###ing trucks by month six, end up in jail for arson, insurance fraud and divorced.
The Amazon deliver business is a “people” business. Don’t be fooled by the vans, the cool scanners and the Amazon tech stack. If you don’t enjoy (or can’t tolerate) the people side of business, you have NO SHOT at employing/retaining 20-40 full-time drivers in 2019, with America at peak economic cycle, hourly employees employed at their next job 3-7 days after quitting on you, and the 200 ways people will disappoint you in a given day and force you to engage them directly.
I hope Amazon will evaluate you for inclusion into the program with this in mind.
But you might just have decent credit and be able to float a note for 20 leased vans.
Unless you passed my 5-question quiz with flying colors, stay on the Amazon payroll. As hard as life is there, it’s safer for you.
Let's talk about something that impacts every organization - The perception of whether your executives do anything, and in a related topic, whether they are viewed as credible.
1--Works hard/does stuff and viewed as credible.
2--Doesn't work hard/do stuff but is viewed as credible.
3--Does stuff/works hard and isn't viewed as credible.
4--Doesn't work hard/do stuff and isn't viewed as credible.
The gold standard is to have execs in #1 - Does stuff/is credible. Engagement is always easier when this is the case. For the most cynical of executives, they'd love to be viewed as credible without really trying to dig in and work or understand what's going on 4-5 levels below them.
Entire TV series have been based on the disconnect - Undercover Boss, anyone? The CEO puts on a stupid wig, goes to the front lines and finds that special person they want to help moving forward - everyone cries and the CEO is now aware of how hard the work is. Check. Then it's back to the corporate jet and the Ritz.
Why am I posting about this today? I was reminded of the four buckets of Executive perception when Magic Johnson resigned as the President of the Los Angeles Lakers (pro basketball). For the uninitiated, Magic is a top 5 player all time in pro basketball, and he's royalty when it comes to the Los Angeles Lakers. So the Lakers hired him 2 years ago to return their organization to glory.
There was just one problem. Magic wanted the job, but he didn't want to have to work hard. In addition, the fact he didn't work hard in a job he didn't know how to do destroyed his credibility in his workplace, which for him was the community of other GMs doing work within the NBA. You can get a good rundown of the Magic Johnson scenario here.
But back to your company. Evaluating whether an executive works hard and is viewed as credible is tough for the following reasons:
a--It's not necessarily the executive's job to understand what everyone does and how the sausage gets made. They have a job that's different that the first layers of your company, and at times, just as important.
b--Employees love to hate. Just because they don't know what the executive does doesn't mean the exec in question doesn't work hard. But it might tell you they need to connect more to be credible.
So how do you determine whether an executive works hard and is credible? My first suggestion is to ask their executive peers who rely on them for services. If the peers don't feel they work hard or are credible, it's likely you have a problem. After all, peers at the executive level are aware of the demands of the job. They're slow to say, "I don't know what he does", because they've heard that before about themselves.
Finally, look for command related to talent management 2 to 3 levels below them. Someone trying to understand the work and add value to the way your company's product or service gets delivered is likely to know who's good and who's not, and base it on tangible items clearly linked to success in the job, not politics or rumors.
There's a lot of people at your company who think your executives don't do anything. They might be right.
You should try to understand if you're dealing with Jeff Bezos or Magic Johnson and take action accordingly.
I've got a senior in High School, and you know what that means - time for admission envy, parental handwringing and everything that goes with along with that.
Sarah's going to Vanderbilt/Harvard/Stanford. Man, I wish my kid would have worked harder...
I get it - we all want more for our kids. To the extent they've worked hard, we want them to go to the best school. When that doesn't happen, we start worrying, because not being admitted to a top school is a classic 1st World problem. The volume gets amped up when your kid is a high performer and can't even get a sniff to a top school with a 4.4 GPA and a 32 ACT. See this post (spend more time on the comments from parents who feel they've been wronged) for some crazy stories, accusations of unfairness and helicopter parents losing their minds.
It's easy to understand your paranoia. If the school your kid is going to isn't up to par in your mind, or if you think he/she has been wronged by an admissions process, it's easy to rant and wish for more.
Until you figure out the following 2 things:
1--Comparison is the thief of joy, and more importantly;
2--By the time your kid has his second job and/or 5 years into the world of work, it's not going to matter where he/she went to school.
Couple of things to offer up. First, consider this study that estimates the economic return of attending an elite college, a summary of which appears below:
Stacy Dale, a mathematician, and Alan Krueger, an economist, collaborated in two large-scale research studies (Dale & Kruger, 2002 & 2014) in which they effectively controlled for the background characteristics of students attending colleges that varied in selectivity (based on average SAT scores of the entering class). The first study was of students entering college in 1976, and the second was of those entering in 1989. Essentially, their question in both studies was this: If people are matched in socioeconomic background and pre-existing indices of their academic ability and motivation, will those who go to an elite college make more money later in life than those who go to a less elite one? The overall result was that the college attended made no difference. Other things being equal, attending an elite school resulted in no income advantage over attending a less elite school, neither in the short term nor in the long term.
The key, of course, is students matched in socioeconomic background, academic ability and motivation. Match kids up by those factors, and there's no outcome difference in attending Kennesaw State vs Georgia Tech (Atlanta example, plug your own in for your area of the US).
And when it comes to the factors considered, give me motivation over the other factors once a decent level of academic ability is present. The average GPA of millionaires is said to be 2.9 - I'll be back with more on that later this week.
I see it all the time as a recruiter - people from elite universities with average careers, and people from schools I've never heard of killing it and running the world.
I was blessed to have my first son do the minimum at a really good high school to get a 3.7 GPA and mail in a high 20's GPA. So my expectations are managed, that's easy when your kid knows not to apply to elite schools. But he was an absolute grinder in other things in his HS years, so I know he has a shot via transferred motivation to do great things and outperform a 34 or higher ACT.
I'm a recruiter by trade. If you're still recovering from your son or daughter going to the state school, chill out. He or she has a 50/50 shot to outperform the kid of the mom who stuck the Stanford admission in your face. But only if they grind and the motivation is greater than their peer group.
BONUS - Video below shows a kid wanting Ivy and coming to the realization it's University of Illinois (from Risky Business, click through if you don't see the video player).
As I've said before in this space, I'm aware of your take on Glassdoor as an HR pro. YOU HATE IT.
I get it. Shout it out loud! The Wall Street Journal did a nice article last week saying you hate it so much, you might be a bit unethical in terms of how you deal with it.
More from the Wall Street Journal below, then I've got the commentary you expect after the jump:
An analysis of millions of anonymous reviews posted on Glassdoor’s site identified more than 400 companies with unusually large single-month increases in reviews. Some companies, including Elon Musk’s rocket company Space Exploration Technologies Corp. and software giant SAP SE , have had multiple spikes.
During the vast majority of these surges, the ratings were disproportionately positive compared with the surrounding months, the Journal’s analysis shows.
In the Journal’s analysis, five-star ratings collectively made up 45% of reviews in the months where the number of reviews jumped, compared with 25% in the six months before and after. While it isn’t possible to determine from the data alone what caused each spike, a statistical test shows the likelihood that so many would skew positive by chance is highly improbable.
Well-known names with large spikes included messaging-app developer Slack Technologies Inc., professional-networking site LinkedIn, health insurer Anthem Inc., household-products maker Clorox Co. and Jack Daniel’s maker Brown-Forman Corp.
Spokespeople for Slack, LinkedIn and Anthem said their companies have encouraged employees to give feedback. A Brown-Forman spokeswoman said it doesn’t have a formal strategy to solicit reviews. Clorox didn’t respond to a request for comment.
In some cases, companies have encouraged loyal employees to post reviews as part of a publicity campaign. SpaceX and SAP, for example, galvanized employees to leave reviews to make Glassdoor’s annual ranking of the “Best Places to Work.”
Other companies, including Guaranteed Rate, have pressured employees to write positive reviews in order to raise poor ratings, according to interviews with current and former employees.
Who's ready to rant? THIS GUY.
You should go read the whole article, because the data analysis alone is solid and research based. My biggest observations are as follows:
1--The implication of the WSJ article is that employers are gaming the system. No, you know what games the system? CREATING A PLATFORM WHERE THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO ARE NATURALLY INCLINED TO ENGAGE ARE THOSE WITH AN AXE TO GRIND. Damn, WSJ, can I at least a paragraph about the dubious nature of the Glassdoor business model before you start blaming employers?
2--The WSJ article never mentions that the business model of Glassdoor is to call up struggling employers and offer to help them. Some call this extortion. I don't (wink! note to Glassdoor legal).
3--The WSJ never gets to the fact that Glassdoor packages and services in the "offer of help" mentioned above basically does the same thing as the WSJ is accusing employers of. GD helps employers get their head around how to raise ratings, and that means proactive campaigns to get positive reviews in.
4--FYI, remind me why we would ask a disgruntled employee to proactively do a Glassdoor review?
5--The chart you see above - the one that shows 5-star ratings on Glassdoor growing from 17% of all review submitted in 2013 to 28% of all reviews in 2019 - is EMPLOYERS REFUSING TO BE USED AND ABUSED BY THE GLASSDOOR PLATFORM.
Yeah, WSJ, we asked some employees that don't hate us to do some reviews. Do better reporting and you'll understand why.