So when I was at Bank of America they did advertise about being a “best place to work”, but it was well earned. Their benefits were great, they were super inclusive, and management really focused on taking care of people.
I left the bank for a small company that also claimed to be a best place to work. I didnt like the project I was on and they were quick to fire people to keep metrics like this up.
I currently work for a small company that does not advertise about this and just might be the best employer I have ever had. It’s all about the people you work with and the quality of your leaders.
I have no proof of this, but it feels like it’s pay-to-play. I assume it’s a way to attract talent and make customers feel good. Current employees shouldn’t need an external poll to tell them if people are happy or not.
Where I work is almost always on these lists. In my experience it is highly dependent on department. I didn’t realize this until transferring to an office that had very few IT workers. Everyone in IT seemed miserable, while everyone outside of IT seemed extremely happy. I once made a rather sarcastic and cynical joke in the elevator to someone in a customer support role and it went over like a led ballon… but that was the language of everyone I worked with in IT. It was wild to me how two departments sitting 50 feet from each other could have such drastically different cultures. On town halls, everyone in the chat is brimming with company pride, meanwhile the side chats from people in the IT org are full of cynicism and sarcasm, with everyone trying to understand if these people are real or just bots… but I think they’re real.
I never trust surveys of companies even if it is a reputable 3rd party. There are too many ways to game such systems. If I wanted real answers I would find out who works in the group(s) I might end up in and reach out to them via email if I can and then set up a call. I would be honest and say I do not trust surveys of "best places to work" and would happily sign an NDA to not share their brutally honest answers. Even that I would take with a grain of salt as they may think it is a test or trap.
Convincing current employees may work on those that are isolated but if one works in a toxic environment they will likely know it. There was a time I would have semi-trusted sites like f'd company of long ago but those get infiltrated, sued and ultimately compromised by corporations that do not like people airing their dirty laundry and also gamified by their competitors.
If a new position turns out to be a crap-show I would just leave and not add it to my CV. If an individual manager is the issue, those come and go. I have found it very easy to make them explore new opportunities.
You should look at the organization / methodology of the survey, but generally it's a positive to get ranked IMO. I used to get surveys these yearly at a past job from the Boston Globe / Best Places to Work and it was basically a third-party email to all employees with a survey you'd fill out.
The most anyone could realistically ask you to do was please fill out the survey positively to try and support the company if you believe it's a best place to work and remind more people to complete the surveys. I don't think companies are really out here trying to game the more reputable surveys, and it would be pretty easily for single employees to defect/report if they were. They also required some level of basic written comments from employees.
Probably a mild green flag for quality of life / general happiness from current employees for the past year.
I consider it a small green flag, if the award is from somewhere semi-reputable.
I've worked at places where employee surveys were done by the 3rd party to decide on winners. Companies that know they mistreat their employees won't bother and some companies will have management surprised when they find out how poorly their employees rated them on those surveys.
I don't think of it as really being a big positive, but it at least weeds out many of the worst.
I wouldn't call ot a red flag. It's just puffery like all the other BS they try to sell you on when recruiting. The company might be decent to work for, or it might be garbage.
From HR perspective it might be the best place to work.
I would look at glassdoor.
Realize it could be great and awful depending on where you work. HR could be great while IT could suck. I interviewed at a place that on glassdoor was listed very well. But when I examined the reviews in detail. Everywhere BUT IT had nothing but praise. IT was a dumpster fire, probably why they were hiring.
So when I was at Bank of America they did advertise about being a “best place to work”, but it was well earned. Their benefits were great, they were super inclusive, and management really focused on taking care of people.
I left the bank for a small company that also claimed to be a best place to work. I didnt like the project I was on and they were quick to fire people to keep metrics like this up.
I currently work for a small company that does not advertise about this and just might be the best employer I have ever had. It’s all about the people you work with and the quality of your leaders.
I have no proof of this, but it feels like it’s pay-to-play. I assume it’s a way to attract talent and make customers feel good. Current employees shouldn’t need an external poll to tell them if people are happy or not.
Where I work is almost always on these lists. In my experience it is highly dependent on department. I didn’t realize this until transferring to an office that had very few IT workers. Everyone in IT seemed miserable, while everyone outside of IT seemed extremely happy. I once made a rather sarcastic and cynical joke in the elevator to someone in a customer support role and it went over like a led ballon… but that was the language of everyone I worked with in IT. It was wild to me how two departments sitting 50 feet from each other could have such drastically different cultures. On town halls, everyone in the chat is brimming with company pride, meanwhile the side chats from people in the IT org are full of cynicism and sarcasm, with everyone trying to understand if these people are real or just bots… but I think they’re real.
I never trust surveys of companies even if it is a reputable 3rd party. There are too many ways to game such systems. If I wanted real answers I would find out who works in the group(s) I might end up in and reach out to them via email if I can and then set up a call. I would be honest and say I do not trust surveys of "best places to work" and would happily sign an NDA to not share their brutally honest answers. Even that I would take with a grain of salt as they may think it is a test or trap.
Convincing current employees may work on those that are isolated but if one works in a toxic environment they will likely know it. There was a time I would have semi-trusted sites like f'd company of long ago but those get infiltrated, sued and ultimately compromised by corporations that do not like people airing their dirty laundry and also gamified by their competitors.
If a new position turns out to be a crap-show I would just leave and not add it to my CV. If an individual manager is the issue, those come and go. I have found it very easy to make them explore new opportunities.
You should look at the organization / methodology of the survey, but generally it's a positive to get ranked IMO. I used to get surveys these yearly at a past job from the Boston Globe / Best Places to Work and it was basically a third-party email to all employees with a survey you'd fill out.
The most anyone could realistically ask you to do was please fill out the survey positively to try and support the company if you believe it's a best place to work and remind more people to complete the surveys. I don't think companies are really out here trying to game the more reputable surveys, and it would be pretty easily for single employees to defect/report if they were. They also required some level of basic written comments from employees.
Probably a mild green flag for quality of life / general happiness from current employees for the past year.
It's both green and yellow. Green because they actually care. Many places just abuse workers and tell them to be grateful.
Yellow because it has to be said. It's probably trying to convince someone. Most of the time it's just HR trying to convince their boss.
I consider it a small green flag, if the award is from somewhere semi-reputable.
I've worked at places where employee surveys were done by the 3rd party to decide on winners. Companies that know they mistreat their employees won't bother and some companies will have management surprised when they find out how poorly their employees rated them on those surveys.
I don't think of it as really being a big positive, but it at least weeds out many of the worst.
It's usually not a green flag. Most of those "best place to work" certifications require compensation or other hand-greasing to acquire.
null signal. totally meaningless.
Amazon added to its list of Leadership Principals “Strive to be Earth’s Best Employer”…
I wouldn't call ot a red flag. It's just puffery like all the other BS they try to sell you on when recruiting. The company might be decent to work for, or it might be garbage.
It could be.
From HR perspective it might be the best place to work.
I would look at glassdoor.
Realize it could be great and awful depending on where you work. HR could be great while IT could suck. I interviewed at a place that on glassdoor was listed very well. But when I examined the reviews in detail. Everywhere BUT IT had nothing but praise. IT was a dumpster fire, probably why they were hiring.
Not a green flag. It is pay to play insignia.
Marketing cost vs improved hiring, comp, quality of life, etc (which is expensive and hard).