Comments on: The company is never as good as the reputation http://cuberules.com/2009/02/26/company-never-good-as-reputation/ Career Advice for Cubicle Warriors Tue, 07 Feb 2012 08:37:54 +0000 hourly 1 By: Scot http://cuberules.com/2009/02/26/company-never-good-as-reputation/comment-page-1/#comment-4728 Scot Thu, 26 Feb 2009 18:27:33 +0000 http://cuberules.com/?p=1968#comment-4728 @Matt - my understanding is the magazines doing the rankings send surveys to the corporate public relations group and people, management people, answer the survey. The survey is usually about hours and benefits with other options. So, for example, a Microsoft "free snacks" benefit is more of a cool place to work than one that doesn't have free snacks. That has nothing to do with whether or not Microsoft is the right fit for you and your work or even if anything gets accomplished by the company. That is the disconnect. And that is why the "marketing" of the company as a place to work is not the reality of the company as a place to work. I used to work for Washington Mutual -- a "100 best" place to work -- and we all know how Washington Mutual ended up. @Matt – my understanding is the magazines doing the rankings send surveys to the corporate public relations group and people, management people, answer the survey. The survey is usually about hours and benefits with other options. So, for example, a Microsoft “free snacks” benefit is more of a cool place to work than one that doesn’t have free snacks. That has nothing to do with whether or not Microsoft is the right fit for you and your work or even if anything gets accomplished by the company. That is the disconnect. And that is why the “marketing” of the company as a place to work is not the reality of the company as a place to work.

I used to work for Washington Mutual — a “100 best” place to work — and we all know how Washington Mutual ended up.

]]> By: Scot http://cuberules.com/2009/02/26/company-never-good-as-reputation/comment-page-1/#comment-6395 Scot Thu, 26 Feb 2009 18:27:00 +0000 http://cuberules.com/?p=1968#comment-6395 @Matt - my understanding is the magazines doing the rankings send surveys to the corporate public relations group and people, management people, answer the survey. The survey is usually about hours and benefits with other options. So, for example, a Microsoft "free snacks" benefit is more of a cool place to work than one that doesn't have free snacks. That has nothing to do with whether or not Microsoft is the right fit for you and your work or even if anything gets accomplished by the company. That is the disconnect. And that is why the "marketing" of the company as a place to work is not the reality of the company as a place to work. I used to work for Washington Mutual -- a "100 best" place to work -- and we all know how Washington Mutual ended up. @Matt – my understanding is the magazines doing the rankings send surveys to the corporate public relations group and people, management people, answer the survey. The survey is usually about hours and benefits with other options. So, for example, a Microsoft “free snacks” benefit is more of a cool place to work than one that doesn’t have free snacks. That has nothing to do with whether or not Microsoft is the right fit for you and your work or even if anything gets accomplished by the company. That is the disconnect. And that is why the “marketing” of the company as a place to work is not the reality of the company as a place to work.

I used to work for Washington Mutual — a “100 best” place to work — and we all know how Washington Mutual ended up.

]]> By: Matt http://cuberules.com/2009/02/26/company-never-good-as-reputation/comment-page-1/#comment-4725 Matt Thu, 26 Feb 2009 15:51:10 +0000 http://cuberules.com/?p=1968#comment-4725 As an employee of one of Fortune's "100 Best To Work For", my question every year is - 'Who filled out those surveys?' I've never understood how they rate the companies, but my own experience here leaves me with two theories on why my company is on the list: 1) the surveys are 'rigged' or 2) there are A LOT of really bad companies operating in the US, so the competition is light. Fairness in pay structure is probably the biggest disconnect I have. Degreed professionals in my department make less than 'managers' without degrees. There is also no accountability for actual work produced/not produced (as a ROWE junkie, it burns me to the core), so you have to do something really bad to get fired. Good for job security, bad for progress and productivity. The benefits aren't superb, as we suffered for several years with exempt employees unable to use individual sick days (had to be in week increments or the time had to be made up). I imagine that little piece of information didn't show up in the survey results during those years. As an employee of one of Fortune’s “100 Best To Work For”, my question every year is – ‘Who filled out those surveys?’ I’ve never understood how they rate the companies, but my own experience here leaves me with two theories on why my company is on the list: 1) the surveys are ‘rigged’ or 2) there are A LOT of really bad companies operating in the US, so the competition is light.

Fairness in pay structure is probably the biggest disconnect I have. Degreed professionals in my department make less than ‘managers’ without degrees. There is also no accountability for actual work produced/not produced (as a ROWE junkie, it burns me to the core), so you have to do something really bad to get fired. Good for job security, bad for progress and productivity.

The benefits aren’t superb, as we suffered for several years with exempt employees unable to use individual sick days (had to be in week increments or the time had to be made up). I imagine that little piece of information didn’t show up in the survey results during those years.

]]> By: Matt http://cuberules.com/2009/02/26/company-never-good-as-reputation/comment-page-1/#comment-6394 Matt Thu, 26 Feb 2009 15:51:00 +0000 http://cuberules.com/?p=1968#comment-6394 As an employee of one of Fortune's "100 Best To Work For", my question every year is - 'Who filled out those surveys?' I've never understood how they rate the companies, but my own experience here leaves me with two theories on why my company is on the list: 1) the surveys are 'rigged' or 2) there are A LOT of really bad companies operating in the US, so the competition is light. Fairness in pay structure is probably the biggest disconnect I have. Degreed professionals in my department make less than 'managers' without degrees. There is also no accountability for actual work produced/not produced (as a ROWE junkie, it burns me to the core), so you have to do something really bad to get fired. Good for job security, bad for progress and productivity. The benefits aren't superb, as we suffered for several years with exempt employees unable to use individual sick days (had to be in week increments or the time had to be made up). I imagine that little piece of information didn't show up in the survey results during those years. As an employee of one of Fortune’s “100 Best To Work For”, my question every year is – ‘Who filled out those surveys?’ I’ve never understood how they rate the companies, but my own experience here leaves me with two theories on why my company is on the list: 1) the surveys are ‘rigged’ or 2) there are A LOT of really bad companies operating in the US, so the competition is light.

Fairness in pay structure is probably the biggest disconnect I have. Degreed professionals in my department make less than ‘managers’ without degrees. There is also no accountability for actual work produced/not produced (as a ROWE junkie, it burns me to the core), so you have to do something really bad to get fired. Good for job security, bad for progress and productivity.

The benefits aren’t superb, as we suffered for several years with exempt employees unable to use individual sick days (had to be in week increments or the time had to be made up). I imagine that little piece of information didn’t show up in the survey results during those years.

]]>