How can a company recover after a Glassdoor debacle?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0;
}
up vote
137
down vote
favorite
This is concerning one of my previous employers. Recently some junior dev left
a bad review, people found out, and this triggered a wave of disgruntled posts detailing their ill experiences. These are centered mostly around the use of old technologies, the inability of management to keep pace with newer tech, and the disappointment of new hires at having to write legacy code right out of the door. Many of them are emotional and some come off a bit bratty, but it's encouraged others to do the same.
People from business units (i.e., not devs) heard about it and some have also chipped in, their input being mostly positive or neutral.
This is not happening to me, but for the purpose of this question, I don't think it matters. Assuming I were the CEO or had a place in management, what could I do regarding damage control?
This is obviously hurting the business as savvy applicants will be discouraged from joining (not that they were flocking before, but let's put that aside) and potential clients may get second thoughts before signing a contract with a business in such internal turmoil.
So far the following things have been tried:
- Leave a comment under each review calling it fake. Yeah, that didn't go well. These were thankfully removed after a level-headed reviewer called out the CEO for doing it.
- Write to Glassdoor asking them to remove "fake" reviews. The CEO seems convinced they were all written by the same person. I don't know what Glassdoor's response was, but no reviews have been removed yet.
- Ask employees, directly or indirectly, to write some good reviews instead. This produced a few positives, but nowhere near enough to turn the tide.
- Ignore it.
united-kingdom feedback online-presence glassdoor damage-control
add a comment |
up vote
137
down vote
favorite
This is concerning one of my previous employers. Recently some junior dev left
a bad review, people found out, and this triggered a wave of disgruntled posts detailing their ill experiences. These are centered mostly around the use of old technologies, the inability of management to keep pace with newer tech, and the disappointment of new hires at having to write legacy code right out of the door. Many of them are emotional and some come off a bit bratty, but it's encouraged others to do the same.
People from business units (i.e., not devs) heard about it and some have also chipped in, their input being mostly positive or neutral.
This is not happening to me, but for the purpose of this question, I don't think it matters. Assuming I were the CEO or had a place in management, what could I do regarding damage control?
This is obviously hurting the business as savvy applicants will be discouraged from joining (not that they were flocking before, but let's put that aside) and potential clients may get second thoughts before signing a contract with a business in such internal turmoil.
So far the following things have been tried:
- Leave a comment under each review calling it fake. Yeah, that didn't go well. These were thankfully removed after a level-headed reviewer called out the CEO for doing it.
- Write to Glassdoor asking them to remove "fake" reviews. The CEO seems convinced they were all written by the same person. I don't know what Glassdoor's response was, but no reviews have been removed yet.
- Ask employees, directly or indirectly, to write some good reviews instead. This produced a few positives, but nowhere near enough to turn the tide.
- Ignore it.
united-kingdom feedback online-presence glassdoor damage-control
4
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– Jane S♦
2 days ago
"and the disappointment of new hires at having to write legacy code right out of the door." As a greybeard who had to write a lot of legacy code right out of college when I'd have rather written Turbo Pascal, and yet did it anyway without (much) whining -- and certainly not quitting -- this reaffirms my opinion of The Youth Of Today.
– RonJohn
4 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
137
down vote
favorite
up vote
137
down vote
favorite
This is concerning one of my previous employers. Recently some junior dev left
a bad review, people found out, and this triggered a wave of disgruntled posts detailing their ill experiences. These are centered mostly around the use of old technologies, the inability of management to keep pace with newer tech, and the disappointment of new hires at having to write legacy code right out of the door. Many of them are emotional and some come off a bit bratty, but it's encouraged others to do the same.
People from business units (i.e., not devs) heard about it and some have also chipped in, their input being mostly positive or neutral.
This is not happening to me, but for the purpose of this question, I don't think it matters. Assuming I were the CEO or had a place in management, what could I do regarding damage control?
This is obviously hurting the business as savvy applicants will be discouraged from joining (not that they were flocking before, but let's put that aside) and potential clients may get second thoughts before signing a contract with a business in such internal turmoil.
So far the following things have been tried:
- Leave a comment under each review calling it fake. Yeah, that didn't go well. These were thankfully removed after a level-headed reviewer called out the CEO for doing it.
- Write to Glassdoor asking them to remove "fake" reviews. The CEO seems convinced they were all written by the same person. I don't know what Glassdoor's response was, but no reviews have been removed yet.
- Ask employees, directly or indirectly, to write some good reviews instead. This produced a few positives, but nowhere near enough to turn the tide.
- Ignore it.
united-kingdom feedback online-presence glassdoor damage-control
This is concerning one of my previous employers. Recently some junior dev left
a bad review, people found out, and this triggered a wave of disgruntled posts detailing their ill experiences. These are centered mostly around the use of old technologies, the inability of management to keep pace with newer tech, and the disappointment of new hires at having to write legacy code right out of the door. Many of them are emotional and some come off a bit bratty, but it's encouraged others to do the same.
People from business units (i.e., not devs) heard about it and some have also chipped in, their input being mostly positive or neutral.
This is not happening to me, but for the purpose of this question, I don't think it matters. Assuming I were the CEO or had a place in management, what could I do regarding damage control?
This is obviously hurting the business as savvy applicants will be discouraged from joining (not that they were flocking before, but let's put that aside) and potential clients may get second thoughts before signing a contract with a business in such internal turmoil.
So far the following things have been tried:
- Leave a comment under each review calling it fake. Yeah, that didn't go well. These were thankfully removed after a level-headed reviewer called out the CEO for doing it.
- Write to Glassdoor asking them to remove "fake" reviews. The CEO seems convinced they were all written by the same person. I don't know what Glassdoor's response was, but no reviews have been removed yet.
- Ask employees, directly or indirectly, to write some good reviews instead. This produced a few positives, but nowhere near enough to turn the tide.
- Ignore it.
united-kingdom feedback online-presence glassdoor damage-control
united-kingdom feedback online-presence glassdoor damage-control
edited 2 days ago
donjuedo
39739
39739
asked 2 days ago
rath
16.2k125083
16.2k125083
4
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– Jane S♦
2 days ago
"and the disappointment of new hires at having to write legacy code right out of the door." As a greybeard who had to write a lot of legacy code right out of college when I'd have rather written Turbo Pascal, and yet did it anyway without (much) whining -- and certainly not quitting -- this reaffirms my opinion of The Youth Of Today.
– RonJohn
4 hours ago
add a comment |
4
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– Jane S♦
2 days ago
"and the disappointment of new hires at having to write legacy code right out of the door." As a greybeard who had to write a lot of legacy code right out of college when I'd have rather written Turbo Pascal, and yet did it anyway without (much) whining -- and certainly not quitting -- this reaffirms my opinion of The Youth Of Today.
– RonJohn
4 hours ago
4
4
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– Jane S♦
2 days ago
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– Jane S♦
2 days ago
"and the disappointment of new hires at having to write legacy code right out of the door." As a greybeard who had to write a lot of legacy code right out of college when I'd have rather written Turbo Pascal, and yet did it anyway without (much) whining -- and certainly not quitting -- this reaffirms my opinion of The Youth Of Today.
– RonJohn
4 hours ago
"and the disappointment of new hires at having to write legacy code right out of the door." As a greybeard who had to write a lot of legacy code right out of college when I'd have rather written Turbo Pascal, and yet did it anyway without (much) whining -- and certainly not quitting -- this reaffirms my opinion of The Youth Of Today.
– RonJohn
4 hours ago
add a comment |
12 Answers
12
active
oldest
votes
up vote
193
down vote
For the purposes of this, I'm going to assume that at least the bare facts of the reviews are accurate (i.e., that the company uses older technologies and sometimes requires legacy code from new hires). That being the case, I'd actually lean towards "Ignore it", perhaps even with a mixture of "Embrace it".
The whole point of Glassdoor reviews is so you can assess whether a company provides a working environment that you'll be happy in - and while I personally don't agree with the whole bratty trend of developers whinging because they think they should be entitled to be working on the newest shiny toys (regardless of trivial things like whether it suits the business needs of the company), at the end of the day if someone does have that mindset then ultimately they aren't going to be happy working at that company so you don't want to hire them anyway.
If the company is upfront about what technologies etc. the position will entail, then you are going to stand a much better chance of hiring people who are a better fit for that environment, rather than people coming in with a misconception and ending up disgruntled.
8
"whinging because they think they should be entitled to be working on the newest shiny toys" I think you are underestimating how much working on legacy stuff can set a developers career back. From the point of view of getting your next job it's basically a gap in your resume at best.
– Keith Loughnane
13 hours ago
6
@KeithLoughnane How is it a "dead" technology if it is actively being used and people are working on it?
– motosubatsu
12 hours ago
7
@motosubatsu Perhaps "dying" would be a better word than "dead". If you're an expert on COBOL, you can probably still find well paid work today. But if you're under 50, it's a technology that's probably closer to retirement than you are.
– James_pic
11 hours ago
10
@James_pic which is why I advocate that companies should always be upfront about the technology and environment they are hiring for. COBOL may well be closer to retirement than I am (I'm a creaky 37) - but it's probably further from retirement than, for example Angular. It's easy to dismiss it as something that's hardly ever used - but as recently as 2012 it was still in use in > 60% of companies and had a greater presence than C# or C++ and there was a new standard issued for it as recently as 2014.
– motosubatsu
10 hours ago
4
Were I still in the perm game and had COBOL on my CV in place of (or additional to) the .NET stuff I could be pulling down a wage more than double my last perm .NET job as Head of Developement for a multi-million pound company. That would really be a career that was in the doldrums!
– motosubatsu
9 hours ago
|
show 9 more comments
up vote
109
down vote
You're looking at this "problem" the wrong way. The way your question reads is "People are leaving negative reviews, therefore people shouldn't be leaving negative reviews, how do we stop people from leaving negative reviews, or have the negative reviews removed to keep our reputation?". That's the mindset that makes you deserving of those negative reviews; to put it another way, if that's how you react to negative reviews, then you deserve as many negative reviews as you get, and there is no hope for you. Remember, Glassdoor doesn't take action from companies based on the companies' wishes; they don't delete reviews just for being negative just because the company asked them to, that's in their policy.
Your mindset should be: "People are leaving negative reviews. Why are they being negative, and what can we take away from this to make people more positive?" Here's the thing: If you have 20 negative reviews that were written last month, you have a problem. If you have 20 negative reviews from 5 years ago and then another 100 positive reviews from last month, the problem goes away. So what you should do for now is ignore the negative reviews (or respond to them in a positive, professional manner, respecting the point of view of the reviewer; coming off as petulant children, which is what sounds like is happening currently, will only serve to make the problem worse). Then you take the constructive parts of the negative reviews (such as they are) and use them to implement changes. Some examples:
1) Tech stack is too old. This is bad not only for your employees but also for your business as a whole. Perhaps today you are using technologies like C++, JQuery, and HTML4 for your tech stack, and that's fine, because these technologies are old but people still know them. But soon they won't be, and you'll be hard pressed to find a developer below retirement age who knows how to dereference a pointer. And then you're SOL because you have legacy code that nobody can maintain. This is a warning sign for you: You should update your tech stack to something that people are learning now, and this is something you should be doing without someone giving you a 1/5 on Glassdoor before you figure it out.
2) Management incompetence is a sign of a company which is ready to fail. If the company is big enough, management doesn't need to know the details of the tech stack. But it sounds like your company isn't at that scale yet, so management needs to be aware of what is going on. It sounds like management has their heads in the clouds. This is just irresponsible, because it means if something goes wrong they not only don't know how to fix it, but they don't even know how to go about finding out how to fix it. This can lead to misallocated resources (e.g. a frontend developer assigned to fix a database-level task) and schedule churn.
Here's the bottom line: People leaving Glassdoor reviews is NEVER a bad thing. If you think it is a bad thing, that's because you have a problem which you know is a problem and you acknowledge as a problem but you refuse to fix it because of your pride. Get off your high horse, fix your business, make some money, and stop grandstanding.
1
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– Jane S♦
22 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
40
down vote
Leave a comment under each review calling it fake.
What would "fake" mean in this case?
Did the person claiming the reviews were fake think the info in the reviews was false (i.e. the company doesn't use old-fashioned systems) or did they think the reviews were all written by one person?
If the reviews aren't facts-based, this can be pointed to. For example, it can be pointed out by the company's HR that they are actually using state-of-the-art technologies.
But lying can normally lead to a PR disaster.
Write to Glassdoor asking them to
remove "fake" reviews.
If they were all produced by one person, it should be possible to prove that easily, so yes, it's a solution. But hopefully, glassdoor doesn't delete legitimate reviews.
Ask employees, directly or indirectly,
to write some good reviews instead.
I use glassdoor and similar sites a lot and it's normally very clear which reviews were written by the HR.
Not to mention that when I was asked to produce similar reviews, this did impact on my opinion about my current employer. It's hard to respect a company that wants you to produce fake reviews.
Ignore it.
Well, it's better to ignore it than to write a silly answer, that's for sure.
The best response from the PR point of view would be, however, one not listed by you. The best response is to react constructively. This means the management should analyze the points from the reviews and take a fair stance on them. For example, if many people write the company is using old technologies, it would be good to scrutinize whether that's really the case or not.
If that's true, the company should own to it, but stress for example, that the technologies are still used by plenty of important companies, so by learning them new employees get valuable skills and that candidates learn about the technologies used from job ads and later during the interview processes - that nobody is misled.
This assertion makes sense only if really nobody is misled of course.
And if the company is really bad - if it misleads candidates promising them modern technologies, development and then gives them jobs using technologies from the 80s?
Well, then it's good it gets criticized online. The relation between employers and candidates is a dramatically unequal one. So it's good that some candidates will learn the truth from such reviews.
1
Not really the 80's, more like 00's, add some bad practices to the mix, add in hasty / brittle code that no one wants to touch lest they break absolutely everything, and it's not a pleasant experience overall. So even if you're ok with older technologies, quality control has been nonexistent for years. It's not a fun codebase to work with.
– rath
2 days ago
16
@rath "hasty / brittle code that no one wants to touch lest they break absolutely everything" I find that to be one of the biggest issues there are when the quality control is lacking (or simply absent). You find code that should be changed but know that changing it would mean off-hours work and getting blame afterwards if anything built on it elsewhere stops working, so you're forced to write wrappers that make the problem even worse for the next addition. Technical debt can kill projects.
– LordHieros
2 days ago
1
@LordHieros Exactly the case and a big reason why I left
– rath
2 days ago
2
Interesting side-note: While you can counter-argue to objective claims, you can also just try to point at the glassdoor policy and maybe get their moderators on your side. They explicitly discourage factual statements in favour of clearly opinion-based statements, quote: 'We strongly suggest you not make provable statements of fact in your Glassdoor reviews. We encourage you instead to offer your "opinions" about your workplace.' help.glassdoor.com/article/… Feel free to incorporate that into your answer if you want.
– Darkwing
2 days ago
@Darkwing how depressing. I'm distrustful of assertions without evidence (Wikipedia FTW!), and this makes it even worse.
– RonJohn
4 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
14
down vote
Adding a response to complaints is the correct answer - but calling them each "fake" is the wrong answer.
When people leave a review on the company, and the feedback is negative, responding by calling it 'fake' does not leave the correct impression - it leads people to believe that your company sweeps problems under the rug and doesn't really care about negative feedback at all. While it might be frustrating to your CEO, if a problem is preported it should be addressed - and in a mature and level-headed manner.
The correct way to respond to these reviews is to address the issue - to leave a comment detailing how the company works to assist people with the problems these programmers have - perhaps even to explain that yes, your company is in the business of maintaining legacy programs, because you are a long-standing company with a lot of legacy users who need that support, and that you offer plenty of training for these long-standing programs and for new recruits.
I don't know the full details of your company - but the bottom line of this is that the best way to deflect complaints like this is to tackle them head-on, and show that you are above these whiners - not to completely ignore them, but to overwhelm them with concern for their reported company issues.
Note - ideally, you would also actually be implementing these improvements, but in lieu of that, you can at least acknowledge these problems and explain steps that you plan to take to correct them.
add a comment |
up vote
14
down vote
Make it a positive experience. Leave a note on Glassdoor that says "Yes, your company's infrastructure is based on VB6 and SQL Server 7 and that it works nicely and meets your needs, and that you're happy with it, not planning on replacing it, and are looking for employees that are also happy with it." Also note that this wasn't a surprise and that the employee was told what the work was before accepting employment.
The world is full of people who would be thrilled to work with whatever technology you have.
The biggest thing you need to do is make sure you set their expectations from the start. You'll probably need to hire experienced, older devs and skip recent grads.
Glassdoor debacle?
It's only a debacle if you perceive it as such.
New contributor
2
This is an excellent answer!
– Fattie
yesterday
2
indeed. Short of catering to the people leaving bad reviews because they had incorrect assumptions about the work they'd be doing after getting hired there's little else you can do. If you're hired for a VB6 maintenance job but expect to be employed on a C# 2018 new development project, either you're delusional or the environment you'd be working in wasn't explained properly in the application process (which is also your responsibility for not asking about it).
– jwenting
18 hours ago
1
"Also note that this wasn't a surprise and that the employee was told what the work was before accepting employment" - nothing in the question suggests this is the case. Due to the global shortage of software devs, it's sadly common that companies who need devs are willing to resort to "bait and switch" tactics by being deceptive about what tech devs will work in. In contrast, because devs are in high demand, they are generally able to pick and choose what job they take based on the tech it involves, which is why it's rare that a dev will take a job that they know they aren't qualified for.
– Ian Kemp
15 hours ago
@jwenting I've been outright lied to before in job interviews. (The one that stands out in my memory is the one where my manager cited the Peter Principle, in slightly different words, as company policy, and at another time described a company as "bigger liars than we are".)
– David Thornley
6 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
8
down vote
There really is only two things that the management can do about this. One is long-term, and the other is short-term.
In the short-term...
Instead of inserting comments which call negative reviews "fake", someone who represents the company can address the individual case in a kind and humane way while also indicating the steps the company is taking to avoid this kind of problem in the future. This is the best way to handle hot-headed negative reviews, in some cases it can even be interpreted as a positive by readers.
In the long term...
Learn from the criticism they've received, and implement changes.
add a comment |
up vote
6
down vote
I have seen this happening, and the net result was lowering the level of candidates for non-managerial jobs. Your CEO has work to do if he wants to rescue the company's reputation in the talent pool.
In terms of practical actions, the CEO needs to address this internally, prioritising complaints and reviewing the most urgent ones internally. Certainly, he doesn't want to brainstorm about those reviews with the whole organisation.
uh, no. The problem here is people having impossible expectations about the work environment it seems, rather than the company itself having a bad work environment.
– jwenting
18 hours ago
I disagree, but thanks for commenting.
– Monoandale
12 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
Simple: pay considerably above the market rate.
That's what many "leading" technology companies do. This brings in lots of candidates to the job interviews, and retains (locks in) existing employees. Of course this requires that company is making money or has regular investment rounds, but if that were not the case, I imagine you wouldn't be asking :)
The above is the easy part. The hard part is how to get healthier company culture adopted. That takes time, but if you solve that, you wouldn't have to worry about a bad review or two.
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
These are centered mostly around the use of old technologies, the inability of management to keep pace with newer tech, and the disappointment of new hires at having to write legacy code right out of the door.
That's good to have in there. This is just the kind of information you want prospective applicants/new hires to have. If they know this going in, you're likely to have better retention and higher worker satisfaction (which also positively affects productivity). Management should probably even put this information in the job description for applicants who don't read Glassdoor. If you can't get people on when that's accurately disclosed, increase salary or other relevant attraction factors. Don't deceive applicants about the type of technology or work they're being hired to do.
Many of them are emotional and some come off a bit bratty, but it's encouraged others to do the same.
If you can tell from reading it that a post is emotional/bratty, probably so can a prospective applicant, who can also discount the value of that review appropriately.
When reading through reviews (for a job or anything else) I find that the negative reviews where people complain about petty things can be some of the most convincing to get me to buy in. If people are complaining about little things, and there are enough reviews that more major issues likely would have been included, that usually means the important things are all at least OK, maybe quite good. "I was hired as a COBOL developer and they just have me writing COBOL for 8 hours a day; so boring" was maybe intended as negative but it'd be a plus in that company's column for me and probably other readers.
Sometimes the effect is even more direct. The coffee is cold on the devs' corporate yacht, and the salary for remote work is only enough to rent a mid-size apartment in San Francisco or Manhattan? Where do I go to sign up?
Assuming I were the CEO or had a place in management, what could I do regarding damage control?
Fix your job descriptions so people know what they are getting into.
If there are other problems being raised in the reviews, think about whether or not those are issues the company can/should fix and if so, how.
If you know of particular loyal employees who are having a good experience, consider asking them to write reviews, to help attract new colleagues.
Also, keep in mind that the percentage of potential applicants/employees who read Glassdoor is lower than you might expect.
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
The only two correct responses are actually fixing the issues and making a large pr move promising to fix the issues that shows what you're doing for your devs and how it's making their life easier.
The latter is very similar to a popular strategy used by youtubers when they get caught in unsavory light. The thing this response affords a company to do is pretend to fix the problem and convince their audience that it's been fixed without actually fixing anything. Youtube itself also employs this strategy.
You don't have to fix anything, if you've made it look like you've fixed everything.
If you don't want to just lie until people agree with you, then you could try being more transparent about what the job actually is, or you can stop making the decision to work for your company something that's massively career limiting by refusing to use modern frameworks that would give your devs relevant experience to put on their resume when applying to better places. You could also try offsetting the garbage work conditions with perks like more time off, more time off, or modern work practices like working from home, unlimited PTO, or unlimited sick days.
Those are really the only good responses. The rest are just going to see the company go really negative as far as hiring PR is concerned.
Perks definitely count. But did you really mean unlimited PTO? That’s impossible.
– LN6595
2 days ago
@LN6595 I've seen it on a few job listings. Usually it has to be within reason and it seems to be working out for these companies. I assume you'd still get fired if you took a ton of time off for no reason. Tbh I'm not sure how it works, but I have seen it offered.
– Steve
2 days ago
And if the "issues" turn out to be mostly one disgruntled employee who's smart enough to evade the duplicate user checks.
– Joshua
yesterday
@Joshua then reap the rewards of being an employer that attracts talent with good work policies. Gotta stop worrying about punishment, it takes too much of your resources.
– Steve
yesterday
We're not worried about punishment. We're worried about hiring.
– Joshua
22 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
up vote
1
down vote
Well, one possibility could be to use the critics and try to solve some issues, e.g. by using more modern practices and spend more time in refactoring your legacy code problem. When things change and become more positive for each of the employees, then they may change the review.
add a comment |
up vote
-8
down vote
Assuming I was the CEO or had a place in management, what could I do regarding damage control?
As long as your company has money to pay salary, you'd always have a team of coding monkeys at your service. There's nothing you or the company should do, clients don't read Glassdoors. Bad candidates? Raise salary or/and employee benefits.
Ask employees, directly or indirectly, to write some good reviews instead.
This is also a possibility. It can also be part of the job; everybody will need to submit a positive review to Glassdoor, reviewed by management.
35
If I was required as part of my job to write a positive work review at my company on any platform, you can bet I'd be writing at least 3 bad ones when I got home that day.
– Sam
2 days ago
29
"This is also a possibility. It can also be part of the job; everybody will need to submit a positive review to Glassdoor." Sounds like, what's the word, extortion? Blackmail?
– jo1storm
2 days ago
10
@bharal Unless the employees are allowed to clearly label their reviews as "company's social engagement efforts", it's pretty much blackmail.
– Dmitry Grigoryev
2 days ago
9
The suggestion of having employees submit positive reviews on glassdoor as "part of the job" reads like an attempt at parody. You can't possibly be serious.
– teego1967
2 days ago
11
@teego1967 My previous company did actually request employees to submit positive Glassdoor reviews, to counter the many negative (and completely justified) reviews from leavers. I'm not aware of anyone apart from board members who actually did submit a positive review. All it did was prompt the rest of us to check Glassdoor and say "yup, that's about right".
– Graham
2 days ago
|
show 5 more comments
protected by mcknz yesterday
Thank you for your interest in this question.
Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).
Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?
12 Answers
12
active
oldest
votes
12 Answers
12
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
193
down vote
For the purposes of this, I'm going to assume that at least the bare facts of the reviews are accurate (i.e., that the company uses older technologies and sometimes requires legacy code from new hires). That being the case, I'd actually lean towards "Ignore it", perhaps even with a mixture of "Embrace it".
The whole point of Glassdoor reviews is so you can assess whether a company provides a working environment that you'll be happy in - and while I personally don't agree with the whole bratty trend of developers whinging because they think they should be entitled to be working on the newest shiny toys (regardless of trivial things like whether it suits the business needs of the company), at the end of the day if someone does have that mindset then ultimately they aren't going to be happy working at that company so you don't want to hire them anyway.
If the company is upfront about what technologies etc. the position will entail, then you are going to stand a much better chance of hiring people who are a better fit for that environment, rather than people coming in with a misconception and ending up disgruntled.
8
"whinging because they think they should be entitled to be working on the newest shiny toys" I think you are underestimating how much working on legacy stuff can set a developers career back. From the point of view of getting your next job it's basically a gap in your resume at best.
– Keith Loughnane
13 hours ago
6
@KeithLoughnane How is it a "dead" technology if it is actively being used and people are working on it?
– motosubatsu
12 hours ago
7
@motosubatsu Perhaps "dying" would be a better word than "dead". If you're an expert on COBOL, you can probably still find well paid work today. But if you're under 50, it's a technology that's probably closer to retirement than you are.
– James_pic
11 hours ago
10
@James_pic which is why I advocate that companies should always be upfront about the technology and environment they are hiring for. COBOL may well be closer to retirement than I am (I'm a creaky 37) - but it's probably further from retirement than, for example Angular. It's easy to dismiss it as something that's hardly ever used - but as recently as 2012 it was still in use in > 60% of companies and had a greater presence than C# or C++ and there was a new standard issued for it as recently as 2014.
– motosubatsu
10 hours ago
4
Were I still in the perm game and had COBOL on my CV in place of (or additional to) the .NET stuff I could be pulling down a wage more than double my last perm .NET job as Head of Developement for a multi-million pound company. That would really be a career that was in the doldrums!
– motosubatsu
9 hours ago
|
show 9 more comments
up vote
193
down vote
For the purposes of this, I'm going to assume that at least the bare facts of the reviews are accurate (i.e., that the company uses older technologies and sometimes requires legacy code from new hires). That being the case, I'd actually lean towards "Ignore it", perhaps even with a mixture of "Embrace it".
The whole point of Glassdoor reviews is so you can assess whether a company provides a working environment that you'll be happy in - and while I personally don't agree with the whole bratty trend of developers whinging because they think they should be entitled to be working on the newest shiny toys (regardless of trivial things like whether it suits the business needs of the company), at the end of the day if someone does have that mindset then ultimately they aren't going to be happy working at that company so you don't want to hire them anyway.
If the company is upfront about what technologies etc. the position will entail, then you are going to stand a much better chance of hiring people who are a better fit for that environment, rather than people coming in with a misconception and ending up disgruntled.
8
"whinging because they think they should be entitled to be working on the newest shiny toys" I think you are underestimating how much working on legacy stuff can set a developers career back. From the point of view of getting your next job it's basically a gap in your resume at best.
– Keith Loughnane
13 hours ago
6
@KeithLoughnane How is it a "dead" technology if it is actively being used and people are working on it?
– motosubatsu
12 hours ago
7
@motosubatsu Perhaps "dying" would be a better word than "dead". If you're an expert on COBOL, you can probably still find well paid work today. But if you're under 50, it's a technology that's probably closer to retirement than you are.
– James_pic
11 hours ago
10
@James_pic which is why I advocate that companies should always be upfront about the technology and environment they are hiring for. COBOL may well be closer to retirement than I am (I'm a creaky 37) - but it's probably further from retirement than, for example Angular. It's easy to dismiss it as something that's hardly ever used - but as recently as 2012 it was still in use in > 60% of companies and had a greater presence than C# or C++ and there was a new standard issued for it as recently as 2014.
– motosubatsu
10 hours ago
4
Were I still in the perm game and had COBOL on my CV in place of (or additional to) the .NET stuff I could be pulling down a wage more than double my last perm .NET job as Head of Developement for a multi-million pound company. That would really be a career that was in the doldrums!
– motosubatsu
9 hours ago
|
show 9 more comments
up vote
193
down vote
up vote
193
down vote
For the purposes of this, I'm going to assume that at least the bare facts of the reviews are accurate (i.e., that the company uses older technologies and sometimes requires legacy code from new hires). That being the case, I'd actually lean towards "Ignore it", perhaps even with a mixture of "Embrace it".
The whole point of Glassdoor reviews is so you can assess whether a company provides a working environment that you'll be happy in - and while I personally don't agree with the whole bratty trend of developers whinging because they think they should be entitled to be working on the newest shiny toys (regardless of trivial things like whether it suits the business needs of the company), at the end of the day if someone does have that mindset then ultimately they aren't going to be happy working at that company so you don't want to hire them anyway.
If the company is upfront about what technologies etc. the position will entail, then you are going to stand a much better chance of hiring people who are a better fit for that environment, rather than people coming in with a misconception and ending up disgruntled.
For the purposes of this, I'm going to assume that at least the bare facts of the reviews are accurate (i.e., that the company uses older technologies and sometimes requires legacy code from new hires). That being the case, I'd actually lean towards "Ignore it", perhaps even with a mixture of "Embrace it".
The whole point of Glassdoor reviews is so you can assess whether a company provides a working environment that you'll be happy in - and while I personally don't agree with the whole bratty trend of developers whinging because they think they should be entitled to be working on the newest shiny toys (regardless of trivial things like whether it suits the business needs of the company), at the end of the day if someone does have that mindset then ultimately they aren't going to be happy working at that company so you don't want to hire them anyway.
If the company is upfront about what technologies etc. the position will entail, then you are going to stand a much better chance of hiring people who are a better fit for that environment, rather than people coming in with a misconception and ending up disgruntled.
edited 2 days ago
donjuedo
39739
39739
answered 2 days ago
motosubatsu
38.5k18101162
38.5k18101162
8
"whinging because they think they should be entitled to be working on the newest shiny toys" I think you are underestimating how much working on legacy stuff can set a developers career back. From the point of view of getting your next job it's basically a gap in your resume at best.
– Keith Loughnane
13 hours ago
6
@KeithLoughnane How is it a "dead" technology if it is actively being used and people are working on it?
– motosubatsu
12 hours ago
7
@motosubatsu Perhaps "dying" would be a better word than "dead". If you're an expert on COBOL, you can probably still find well paid work today. But if you're under 50, it's a technology that's probably closer to retirement than you are.
– James_pic
11 hours ago
10
@James_pic which is why I advocate that companies should always be upfront about the technology and environment they are hiring for. COBOL may well be closer to retirement than I am (I'm a creaky 37) - but it's probably further from retirement than, for example Angular. It's easy to dismiss it as something that's hardly ever used - but as recently as 2012 it was still in use in > 60% of companies and had a greater presence than C# or C++ and there was a new standard issued for it as recently as 2014.
– motosubatsu
10 hours ago
4
Were I still in the perm game and had COBOL on my CV in place of (or additional to) the .NET stuff I could be pulling down a wage more than double my last perm .NET job as Head of Developement for a multi-million pound company. That would really be a career that was in the doldrums!
– motosubatsu
9 hours ago
|
show 9 more comments
8
"whinging because they think they should be entitled to be working on the newest shiny toys" I think you are underestimating how much working on legacy stuff can set a developers career back. From the point of view of getting your next job it's basically a gap in your resume at best.
– Keith Loughnane
13 hours ago
6
@KeithLoughnane How is it a "dead" technology if it is actively being used and people are working on it?
– motosubatsu
12 hours ago
7
@motosubatsu Perhaps "dying" would be a better word than "dead". If you're an expert on COBOL, you can probably still find well paid work today. But if you're under 50, it's a technology that's probably closer to retirement than you are.
– James_pic
11 hours ago
10
@James_pic which is why I advocate that companies should always be upfront about the technology and environment they are hiring for. COBOL may well be closer to retirement than I am (I'm a creaky 37) - but it's probably further from retirement than, for example Angular. It's easy to dismiss it as something that's hardly ever used - but as recently as 2012 it was still in use in > 60% of companies and had a greater presence than C# or C++ and there was a new standard issued for it as recently as 2014.
– motosubatsu
10 hours ago
4
Were I still in the perm game and had COBOL on my CV in place of (or additional to) the .NET stuff I could be pulling down a wage more than double my last perm .NET job as Head of Developement for a multi-million pound company. That would really be a career that was in the doldrums!
– motosubatsu
9 hours ago
8
8
"whinging because they think they should be entitled to be working on the newest shiny toys" I think you are underestimating how much working on legacy stuff can set a developers career back. From the point of view of getting your next job it's basically a gap in your resume at best.
– Keith Loughnane
13 hours ago
"whinging because they think they should be entitled to be working on the newest shiny toys" I think you are underestimating how much working on legacy stuff can set a developers career back. From the point of view of getting your next job it's basically a gap in your resume at best.
– Keith Loughnane
13 hours ago
6
6
@KeithLoughnane How is it a "dead" technology if it is actively being used and people are working on it?
– motosubatsu
12 hours ago
@KeithLoughnane How is it a "dead" technology if it is actively being used and people are working on it?
– motosubatsu
12 hours ago
7
7
@motosubatsu Perhaps "dying" would be a better word than "dead". If you're an expert on COBOL, you can probably still find well paid work today. But if you're under 50, it's a technology that's probably closer to retirement than you are.
– James_pic
11 hours ago
@motosubatsu Perhaps "dying" would be a better word than "dead". If you're an expert on COBOL, you can probably still find well paid work today. But if you're under 50, it's a technology that's probably closer to retirement than you are.
– James_pic
11 hours ago
10
10
@James_pic which is why I advocate that companies should always be upfront about the technology and environment they are hiring for. COBOL may well be closer to retirement than I am (I'm a creaky 37) - but it's probably further from retirement than, for example Angular. It's easy to dismiss it as something that's hardly ever used - but as recently as 2012 it was still in use in > 60% of companies and had a greater presence than C# or C++ and there was a new standard issued for it as recently as 2014.
– motosubatsu
10 hours ago
@James_pic which is why I advocate that companies should always be upfront about the technology and environment they are hiring for. COBOL may well be closer to retirement than I am (I'm a creaky 37) - but it's probably further from retirement than, for example Angular. It's easy to dismiss it as something that's hardly ever used - but as recently as 2012 it was still in use in > 60% of companies and had a greater presence than C# or C++ and there was a new standard issued for it as recently as 2014.
– motosubatsu
10 hours ago
4
4
Were I still in the perm game and had COBOL on my CV in place of (or additional to) the .NET stuff I could be pulling down a wage more than double my last perm .NET job as Head of Developement for a multi-million pound company. That would really be a career that was in the doldrums!
– motosubatsu
9 hours ago
Were I still in the perm game and had COBOL on my CV in place of (or additional to) the .NET stuff I could be pulling down a wage more than double my last perm .NET job as Head of Developement for a multi-million pound company. That would really be a career that was in the doldrums!
– motosubatsu
9 hours ago
|
show 9 more comments
up vote
109
down vote
You're looking at this "problem" the wrong way. The way your question reads is "People are leaving negative reviews, therefore people shouldn't be leaving negative reviews, how do we stop people from leaving negative reviews, or have the negative reviews removed to keep our reputation?". That's the mindset that makes you deserving of those negative reviews; to put it another way, if that's how you react to negative reviews, then you deserve as many negative reviews as you get, and there is no hope for you. Remember, Glassdoor doesn't take action from companies based on the companies' wishes; they don't delete reviews just for being negative just because the company asked them to, that's in their policy.
Your mindset should be: "People are leaving negative reviews. Why are they being negative, and what can we take away from this to make people more positive?" Here's the thing: If you have 20 negative reviews that were written last month, you have a problem. If you have 20 negative reviews from 5 years ago and then another 100 positive reviews from last month, the problem goes away. So what you should do for now is ignore the negative reviews (or respond to them in a positive, professional manner, respecting the point of view of the reviewer; coming off as petulant children, which is what sounds like is happening currently, will only serve to make the problem worse). Then you take the constructive parts of the negative reviews (such as they are) and use them to implement changes. Some examples:
1) Tech stack is too old. This is bad not only for your employees but also for your business as a whole. Perhaps today you are using technologies like C++, JQuery, and HTML4 for your tech stack, and that's fine, because these technologies are old but people still know them. But soon they won't be, and you'll be hard pressed to find a developer below retirement age who knows how to dereference a pointer. And then you're SOL because you have legacy code that nobody can maintain. This is a warning sign for you: You should update your tech stack to something that people are learning now, and this is something you should be doing without someone giving you a 1/5 on Glassdoor before you figure it out.
2) Management incompetence is a sign of a company which is ready to fail. If the company is big enough, management doesn't need to know the details of the tech stack. But it sounds like your company isn't at that scale yet, so management needs to be aware of what is going on. It sounds like management has their heads in the clouds. This is just irresponsible, because it means if something goes wrong they not only don't know how to fix it, but they don't even know how to go about finding out how to fix it. This can lead to misallocated resources (e.g. a frontend developer assigned to fix a database-level task) and schedule churn.
Here's the bottom line: People leaving Glassdoor reviews is NEVER a bad thing. If you think it is a bad thing, that's because you have a problem which you know is a problem and you acknowledge as a problem but you refuse to fix it because of your pride. Get off your high horse, fix your business, make some money, and stop grandstanding.
1
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– Jane S♦
22 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
109
down vote
You're looking at this "problem" the wrong way. The way your question reads is "People are leaving negative reviews, therefore people shouldn't be leaving negative reviews, how do we stop people from leaving negative reviews, or have the negative reviews removed to keep our reputation?". That's the mindset that makes you deserving of those negative reviews; to put it another way, if that's how you react to negative reviews, then you deserve as many negative reviews as you get, and there is no hope for you. Remember, Glassdoor doesn't take action from companies based on the companies' wishes; they don't delete reviews just for being negative just because the company asked them to, that's in their policy.
Your mindset should be: "People are leaving negative reviews. Why are they being negative, and what can we take away from this to make people more positive?" Here's the thing: If you have 20 negative reviews that were written last month, you have a problem. If you have 20 negative reviews from 5 years ago and then another 100 positive reviews from last month, the problem goes away. So what you should do for now is ignore the negative reviews (or respond to them in a positive, professional manner, respecting the point of view of the reviewer; coming off as petulant children, which is what sounds like is happening currently, will only serve to make the problem worse). Then you take the constructive parts of the negative reviews (such as they are) and use them to implement changes. Some examples:
1) Tech stack is too old. This is bad not only for your employees but also for your business as a whole. Perhaps today you are using technologies like C++, JQuery, and HTML4 for your tech stack, and that's fine, because these technologies are old but people still know them. But soon they won't be, and you'll be hard pressed to find a developer below retirement age who knows how to dereference a pointer. And then you're SOL because you have legacy code that nobody can maintain. This is a warning sign for you: You should update your tech stack to something that people are learning now, and this is something you should be doing without someone giving you a 1/5 on Glassdoor before you figure it out.
2) Management incompetence is a sign of a company which is ready to fail. If the company is big enough, management doesn't need to know the details of the tech stack. But it sounds like your company isn't at that scale yet, so management needs to be aware of what is going on. It sounds like management has their heads in the clouds. This is just irresponsible, because it means if something goes wrong they not only don't know how to fix it, but they don't even know how to go about finding out how to fix it. This can lead to misallocated resources (e.g. a frontend developer assigned to fix a database-level task) and schedule churn.
Here's the bottom line: People leaving Glassdoor reviews is NEVER a bad thing. If you think it is a bad thing, that's because you have a problem which you know is a problem and you acknowledge as a problem but you refuse to fix it because of your pride. Get off your high horse, fix your business, make some money, and stop grandstanding.
1
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– Jane S♦
22 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
109
down vote
up vote
109
down vote
You're looking at this "problem" the wrong way. The way your question reads is "People are leaving negative reviews, therefore people shouldn't be leaving negative reviews, how do we stop people from leaving negative reviews, or have the negative reviews removed to keep our reputation?". That's the mindset that makes you deserving of those negative reviews; to put it another way, if that's how you react to negative reviews, then you deserve as many negative reviews as you get, and there is no hope for you. Remember, Glassdoor doesn't take action from companies based on the companies' wishes; they don't delete reviews just for being negative just because the company asked them to, that's in their policy.
Your mindset should be: "People are leaving negative reviews. Why are they being negative, and what can we take away from this to make people more positive?" Here's the thing: If you have 20 negative reviews that were written last month, you have a problem. If you have 20 negative reviews from 5 years ago and then another 100 positive reviews from last month, the problem goes away. So what you should do for now is ignore the negative reviews (or respond to them in a positive, professional manner, respecting the point of view of the reviewer; coming off as petulant children, which is what sounds like is happening currently, will only serve to make the problem worse). Then you take the constructive parts of the negative reviews (such as they are) and use them to implement changes. Some examples:
1) Tech stack is too old. This is bad not only for your employees but also for your business as a whole. Perhaps today you are using technologies like C++, JQuery, and HTML4 for your tech stack, and that's fine, because these technologies are old but people still know them. But soon they won't be, and you'll be hard pressed to find a developer below retirement age who knows how to dereference a pointer. And then you're SOL because you have legacy code that nobody can maintain. This is a warning sign for you: You should update your tech stack to something that people are learning now, and this is something you should be doing without someone giving you a 1/5 on Glassdoor before you figure it out.
2) Management incompetence is a sign of a company which is ready to fail. If the company is big enough, management doesn't need to know the details of the tech stack. But it sounds like your company isn't at that scale yet, so management needs to be aware of what is going on. It sounds like management has their heads in the clouds. This is just irresponsible, because it means if something goes wrong they not only don't know how to fix it, but they don't even know how to go about finding out how to fix it. This can lead to misallocated resources (e.g. a frontend developer assigned to fix a database-level task) and schedule churn.
Here's the bottom line: People leaving Glassdoor reviews is NEVER a bad thing. If you think it is a bad thing, that's because you have a problem which you know is a problem and you acknowledge as a problem but you refuse to fix it because of your pride. Get off your high horse, fix your business, make some money, and stop grandstanding.
You're looking at this "problem" the wrong way. The way your question reads is "People are leaving negative reviews, therefore people shouldn't be leaving negative reviews, how do we stop people from leaving negative reviews, or have the negative reviews removed to keep our reputation?". That's the mindset that makes you deserving of those negative reviews; to put it another way, if that's how you react to negative reviews, then you deserve as many negative reviews as you get, and there is no hope for you. Remember, Glassdoor doesn't take action from companies based on the companies' wishes; they don't delete reviews just for being negative just because the company asked them to, that's in their policy.
Your mindset should be: "People are leaving negative reviews. Why are they being negative, and what can we take away from this to make people more positive?" Here's the thing: If you have 20 negative reviews that were written last month, you have a problem. If you have 20 negative reviews from 5 years ago and then another 100 positive reviews from last month, the problem goes away. So what you should do for now is ignore the negative reviews (or respond to them in a positive, professional manner, respecting the point of view of the reviewer; coming off as petulant children, which is what sounds like is happening currently, will only serve to make the problem worse). Then you take the constructive parts of the negative reviews (such as they are) and use them to implement changes. Some examples:
1) Tech stack is too old. This is bad not only for your employees but also for your business as a whole. Perhaps today you are using technologies like C++, JQuery, and HTML4 for your tech stack, and that's fine, because these technologies are old but people still know them. But soon they won't be, and you'll be hard pressed to find a developer below retirement age who knows how to dereference a pointer. And then you're SOL because you have legacy code that nobody can maintain. This is a warning sign for you: You should update your tech stack to something that people are learning now, and this is something you should be doing without someone giving you a 1/5 on Glassdoor before you figure it out.
2) Management incompetence is a sign of a company which is ready to fail. If the company is big enough, management doesn't need to know the details of the tech stack. But it sounds like your company isn't at that scale yet, so management needs to be aware of what is going on. It sounds like management has their heads in the clouds. This is just irresponsible, because it means if something goes wrong they not only don't know how to fix it, but they don't even know how to go about finding out how to fix it. This can lead to misallocated resources (e.g. a frontend developer assigned to fix a database-level task) and schedule churn.
Here's the bottom line: People leaving Glassdoor reviews is NEVER a bad thing. If you think it is a bad thing, that's because you have a problem which you know is a problem and you acknowledge as a problem but you refuse to fix it because of your pride. Get off your high horse, fix your business, make some money, and stop grandstanding.
answered 2 days ago
Ertai87
5,2081518
5,2081518
1
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– Jane S♦
22 hours ago
add a comment |
1
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– Jane S♦
22 hours ago
1
1
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– Jane S♦
22 hours ago
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– Jane S♦
22 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
40
down vote
Leave a comment under each review calling it fake.
What would "fake" mean in this case?
Did the person claiming the reviews were fake think the info in the reviews was false (i.e. the company doesn't use old-fashioned systems) or did they think the reviews were all written by one person?
If the reviews aren't facts-based, this can be pointed to. For example, it can be pointed out by the company's HR that they are actually using state-of-the-art technologies.
But lying can normally lead to a PR disaster.
Write to Glassdoor asking them to
remove "fake" reviews.
If they were all produced by one person, it should be possible to prove that easily, so yes, it's a solution. But hopefully, glassdoor doesn't delete legitimate reviews.
Ask employees, directly or indirectly,
to write some good reviews instead.
I use glassdoor and similar sites a lot and it's normally very clear which reviews were written by the HR.
Not to mention that when I was asked to produce similar reviews, this did impact on my opinion about my current employer. It's hard to respect a company that wants you to produce fake reviews.
Ignore it.
Well, it's better to ignore it than to write a silly answer, that's for sure.
The best response from the PR point of view would be, however, one not listed by you. The best response is to react constructively. This means the management should analyze the points from the reviews and take a fair stance on them. For example, if many people write the company is using old technologies, it would be good to scrutinize whether that's really the case or not.
If that's true, the company should own to it, but stress for example, that the technologies are still used by plenty of important companies, so by learning them new employees get valuable skills and that candidates learn about the technologies used from job ads and later during the interview processes - that nobody is misled.
This assertion makes sense only if really nobody is misled of course.
And if the company is really bad - if it misleads candidates promising them modern technologies, development and then gives them jobs using technologies from the 80s?
Well, then it's good it gets criticized online. The relation between employers and candidates is a dramatically unequal one. So it's good that some candidates will learn the truth from such reviews.
1
Not really the 80's, more like 00's, add some bad practices to the mix, add in hasty / brittle code that no one wants to touch lest they break absolutely everything, and it's not a pleasant experience overall. So even if you're ok with older technologies, quality control has been nonexistent for years. It's not a fun codebase to work with.
– rath
2 days ago
16
@rath "hasty / brittle code that no one wants to touch lest they break absolutely everything" I find that to be one of the biggest issues there are when the quality control is lacking (or simply absent). You find code that should be changed but know that changing it would mean off-hours work and getting blame afterwards if anything built on it elsewhere stops working, so you're forced to write wrappers that make the problem even worse for the next addition. Technical debt can kill projects.
– LordHieros
2 days ago
1
@LordHieros Exactly the case and a big reason why I left
– rath
2 days ago
2
Interesting side-note: While you can counter-argue to objective claims, you can also just try to point at the glassdoor policy and maybe get their moderators on your side. They explicitly discourage factual statements in favour of clearly opinion-based statements, quote: 'We strongly suggest you not make provable statements of fact in your Glassdoor reviews. We encourage you instead to offer your "opinions" about your workplace.' help.glassdoor.com/article/… Feel free to incorporate that into your answer if you want.
– Darkwing
2 days ago
@Darkwing how depressing. I'm distrustful of assertions without evidence (Wikipedia FTW!), and this makes it even worse.
– RonJohn
4 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
40
down vote
Leave a comment under each review calling it fake.
What would "fake" mean in this case?
Did the person claiming the reviews were fake think the info in the reviews was false (i.e. the company doesn't use old-fashioned systems) or did they think the reviews were all written by one person?
If the reviews aren't facts-based, this can be pointed to. For example, it can be pointed out by the company's HR that they are actually using state-of-the-art technologies.
But lying can normally lead to a PR disaster.
Write to Glassdoor asking them to
remove "fake" reviews.
If they were all produced by one person, it should be possible to prove that easily, so yes, it's a solution. But hopefully, glassdoor doesn't delete legitimate reviews.
Ask employees, directly or indirectly,
to write some good reviews instead.
I use glassdoor and similar sites a lot and it's normally very clear which reviews were written by the HR.
Not to mention that when I was asked to produce similar reviews, this did impact on my opinion about my current employer. It's hard to respect a company that wants you to produce fake reviews.
Ignore it.
Well, it's better to ignore it than to write a silly answer, that's for sure.
The best response from the PR point of view would be, however, one not listed by you. The best response is to react constructively. This means the management should analyze the points from the reviews and take a fair stance on them. For example, if many people write the company is using old technologies, it would be good to scrutinize whether that's really the case or not.
If that's true, the company should own to it, but stress for example, that the technologies are still used by plenty of important companies, so by learning them new employees get valuable skills and that candidates learn about the technologies used from job ads and later during the interview processes - that nobody is misled.
This assertion makes sense only if really nobody is misled of course.
And if the company is really bad - if it misleads candidates promising them modern technologies, development and then gives them jobs using technologies from the 80s?
Well, then it's good it gets criticized online. The relation between employers and candidates is a dramatically unequal one. So it's good that some candidates will learn the truth from such reviews.
1
Not really the 80's, more like 00's, add some bad practices to the mix, add in hasty / brittle code that no one wants to touch lest they break absolutely everything, and it's not a pleasant experience overall. So even if you're ok with older technologies, quality control has been nonexistent for years. It's not a fun codebase to work with.
– rath
2 days ago
16
@rath "hasty / brittle code that no one wants to touch lest they break absolutely everything" I find that to be one of the biggest issues there are when the quality control is lacking (or simply absent). You find code that should be changed but know that changing it would mean off-hours work and getting blame afterwards if anything built on it elsewhere stops working, so you're forced to write wrappers that make the problem even worse for the next addition. Technical debt can kill projects.
– LordHieros
2 days ago
1
@LordHieros Exactly the case and a big reason why I left
– rath
2 days ago
2
Interesting side-note: While you can counter-argue to objective claims, you can also just try to point at the glassdoor policy and maybe get their moderators on your side. They explicitly discourage factual statements in favour of clearly opinion-based statements, quote: 'We strongly suggest you not make provable statements of fact in your Glassdoor reviews. We encourage you instead to offer your "opinions" about your workplace.' help.glassdoor.com/article/… Feel free to incorporate that into your answer if you want.
– Darkwing
2 days ago
@Darkwing how depressing. I'm distrustful of assertions without evidence (Wikipedia FTW!), and this makes it even worse.
– RonJohn
4 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
40
down vote
up vote
40
down vote
Leave a comment under each review calling it fake.
What would "fake" mean in this case?
Did the person claiming the reviews were fake think the info in the reviews was false (i.e. the company doesn't use old-fashioned systems) or did they think the reviews were all written by one person?
If the reviews aren't facts-based, this can be pointed to. For example, it can be pointed out by the company's HR that they are actually using state-of-the-art technologies.
But lying can normally lead to a PR disaster.
Write to Glassdoor asking them to
remove "fake" reviews.
If they were all produced by one person, it should be possible to prove that easily, so yes, it's a solution. But hopefully, glassdoor doesn't delete legitimate reviews.
Ask employees, directly or indirectly,
to write some good reviews instead.
I use glassdoor and similar sites a lot and it's normally very clear which reviews were written by the HR.
Not to mention that when I was asked to produce similar reviews, this did impact on my opinion about my current employer. It's hard to respect a company that wants you to produce fake reviews.
Ignore it.
Well, it's better to ignore it than to write a silly answer, that's for sure.
The best response from the PR point of view would be, however, one not listed by you. The best response is to react constructively. This means the management should analyze the points from the reviews and take a fair stance on them. For example, if many people write the company is using old technologies, it would be good to scrutinize whether that's really the case or not.
If that's true, the company should own to it, but stress for example, that the technologies are still used by plenty of important companies, so by learning them new employees get valuable skills and that candidates learn about the technologies used from job ads and later during the interview processes - that nobody is misled.
This assertion makes sense only if really nobody is misled of course.
And if the company is really bad - if it misleads candidates promising them modern technologies, development and then gives them jobs using technologies from the 80s?
Well, then it's good it gets criticized online. The relation between employers and candidates is a dramatically unequal one. So it's good that some candidates will learn the truth from such reviews.
Leave a comment under each review calling it fake.
What would "fake" mean in this case?
Did the person claiming the reviews were fake think the info in the reviews was false (i.e. the company doesn't use old-fashioned systems) or did they think the reviews were all written by one person?
If the reviews aren't facts-based, this can be pointed to. For example, it can be pointed out by the company's HR that they are actually using state-of-the-art technologies.
But lying can normally lead to a PR disaster.
Write to Glassdoor asking them to
remove "fake" reviews.
If they were all produced by one person, it should be possible to prove that easily, so yes, it's a solution. But hopefully, glassdoor doesn't delete legitimate reviews.
Ask employees, directly or indirectly,
to write some good reviews instead.
I use glassdoor and similar sites a lot and it's normally very clear which reviews were written by the HR.
Not to mention that when I was asked to produce similar reviews, this did impact on my opinion about my current employer. It's hard to respect a company that wants you to produce fake reviews.
Ignore it.
Well, it's better to ignore it than to write a silly answer, that's for sure.
The best response from the PR point of view would be, however, one not listed by you. The best response is to react constructively. This means the management should analyze the points from the reviews and take a fair stance on them. For example, if many people write the company is using old technologies, it would be good to scrutinize whether that's really the case or not.
If that's true, the company should own to it, but stress for example, that the technologies are still used by plenty of important companies, so by learning them new employees get valuable skills and that candidates learn about the technologies used from job ads and later during the interview processes - that nobody is misled.
This assertion makes sense only if really nobody is misled of course.
And if the company is really bad - if it misleads candidates promising them modern technologies, development and then gives them jobs using technologies from the 80s?
Well, then it's good it gets criticized online. The relation between employers and candidates is a dramatically unequal one. So it's good that some candidates will learn the truth from such reviews.
edited 2 days ago
answered 2 days ago
385703
7,34661441
7,34661441
1
Not really the 80's, more like 00's, add some bad practices to the mix, add in hasty / brittle code that no one wants to touch lest they break absolutely everything, and it's not a pleasant experience overall. So even if you're ok with older technologies, quality control has been nonexistent for years. It's not a fun codebase to work with.
– rath
2 days ago
16
@rath "hasty / brittle code that no one wants to touch lest they break absolutely everything" I find that to be one of the biggest issues there are when the quality control is lacking (or simply absent). You find code that should be changed but know that changing it would mean off-hours work and getting blame afterwards if anything built on it elsewhere stops working, so you're forced to write wrappers that make the problem even worse for the next addition. Technical debt can kill projects.
– LordHieros
2 days ago
1
@LordHieros Exactly the case and a big reason why I left
– rath
2 days ago
2
Interesting side-note: While you can counter-argue to objective claims, you can also just try to point at the glassdoor policy and maybe get their moderators on your side. They explicitly discourage factual statements in favour of clearly opinion-based statements, quote: 'We strongly suggest you not make provable statements of fact in your Glassdoor reviews. We encourage you instead to offer your "opinions" about your workplace.' help.glassdoor.com/article/… Feel free to incorporate that into your answer if you want.
– Darkwing
2 days ago
@Darkwing how depressing. I'm distrustful of assertions without evidence (Wikipedia FTW!), and this makes it even worse.
– RonJohn
4 hours ago
add a comment |
1
Not really the 80's, more like 00's, add some bad practices to the mix, add in hasty / brittle code that no one wants to touch lest they break absolutely everything, and it's not a pleasant experience overall. So even if you're ok with older technologies, quality control has been nonexistent for years. It's not a fun codebase to work with.
– rath
2 days ago
16
@rath "hasty / brittle code that no one wants to touch lest they break absolutely everything" I find that to be one of the biggest issues there are when the quality control is lacking (or simply absent). You find code that should be changed but know that changing it would mean off-hours work and getting blame afterwards if anything built on it elsewhere stops working, so you're forced to write wrappers that make the problem even worse for the next addition. Technical debt can kill projects.
– LordHieros
2 days ago
1
@LordHieros Exactly the case and a big reason why I left
– rath
2 days ago
2
Interesting side-note: While you can counter-argue to objective claims, you can also just try to point at the glassdoor policy and maybe get their moderators on your side. They explicitly discourage factual statements in favour of clearly opinion-based statements, quote: 'We strongly suggest you not make provable statements of fact in your Glassdoor reviews. We encourage you instead to offer your "opinions" about your workplace.' help.glassdoor.com/article/… Feel free to incorporate that into your answer if you want.
– Darkwing
2 days ago
@Darkwing how depressing. I'm distrustful of assertions without evidence (Wikipedia FTW!), and this makes it even worse.
– RonJohn
4 hours ago
1
1
Not really the 80's, more like 00's, add some bad practices to the mix, add in hasty / brittle code that no one wants to touch lest they break absolutely everything, and it's not a pleasant experience overall. So even if you're ok with older technologies, quality control has been nonexistent for years. It's not a fun codebase to work with.
– rath
2 days ago
Not really the 80's, more like 00's, add some bad practices to the mix, add in hasty / brittle code that no one wants to touch lest they break absolutely everything, and it's not a pleasant experience overall. So even if you're ok with older technologies, quality control has been nonexistent for years. It's not a fun codebase to work with.
– rath
2 days ago
16
16
@rath "hasty / brittle code that no one wants to touch lest they break absolutely everything" I find that to be one of the biggest issues there are when the quality control is lacking (or simply absent). You find code that should be changed but know that changing it would mean off-hours work and getting blame afterwards if anything built on it elsewhere stops working, so you're forced to write wrappers that make the problem even worse for the next addition. Technical debt can kill projects.
– LordHieros
2 days ago
@rath "hasty / brittle code that no one wants to touch lest they break absolutely everything" I find that to be one of the biggest issues there are when the quality control is lacking (or simply absent). You find code that should be changed but know that changing it would mean off-hours work and getting blame afterwards if anything built on it elsewhere stops working, so you're forced to write wrappers that make the problem even worse for the next addition. Technical debt can kill projects.
– LordHieros
2 days ago
1
1
@LordHieros Exactly the case and a big reason why I left
– rath
2 days ago
@LordHieros Exactly the case and a big reason why I left
– rath
2 days ago
2
2
Interesting side-note: While you can counter-argue to objective claims, you can also just try to point at the glassdoor policy and maybe get their moderators on your side. They explicitly discourage factual statements in favour of clearly opinion-based statements, quote: 'We strongly suggest you not make provable statements of fact in your Glassdoor reviews. We encourage you instead to offer your "opinions" about your workplace.' help.glassdoor.com/article/… Feel free to incorporate that into your answer if you want.
– Darkwing
2 days ago
Interesting side-note: While you can counter-argue to objective claims, you can also just try to point at the glassdoor policy and maybe get their moderators on your side. They explicitly discourage factual statements in favour of clearly opinion-based statements, quote: 'We strongly suggest you not make provable statements of fact in your Glassdoor reviews. We encourage you instead to offer your "opinions" about your workplace.' help.glassdoor.com/article/… Feel free to incorporate that into your answer if you want.
– Darkwing
2 days ago
@Darkwing how depressing. I'm distrustful of assertions without evidence (Wikipedia FTW!), and this makes it even worse.
– RonJohn
4 hours ago
@Darkwing how depressing. I'm distrustful of assertions without evidence (Wikipedia FTW!), and this makes it even worse.
– RonJohn
4 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
14
down vote
Adding a response to complaints is the correct answer - but calling them each "fake" is the wrong answer.
When people leave a review on the company, and the feedback is negative, responding by calling it 'fake' does not leave the correct impression - it leads people to believe that your company sweeps problems under the rug and doesn't really care about negative feedback at all. While it might be frustrating to your CEO, if a problem is preported it should be addressed - and in a mature and level-headed manner.
The correct way to respond to these reviews is to address the issue - to leave a comment detailing how the company works to assist people with the problems these programmers have - perhaps even to explain that yes, your company is in the business of maintaining legacy programs, because you are a long-standing company with a lot of legacy users who need that support, and that you offer plenty of training for these long-standing programs and for new recruits.
I don't know the full details of your company - but the bottom line of this is that the best way to deflect complaints like this is to tackle them head-on, and show that you are above these whiners - not to completely ignore them, but to overwhelm them with concern for their reported company issues.
Note - ideally, you would also actually be implementing these improvements, but in lieu of that, you can at least acknowledge these problems and explain steps that you plan to take to correct them.
add a comment |
up vote
14
down vote
Adding a response to complaints is the correct answer - but calling them each "fake" is the wrong answer.
When people leave a review on the company, and the feedback is negative, responding by calling it 'fake' does not leave the correct impression - it leads people to believe that your company sweeps problems under the rug and doesn't really care about negative feedback at all. While it might be frustrating to your CEO, if a problem is preported it should be addressed - and in a mature and level-headed manner.
The correct way to respond to these reviews is to address the issue - to leave a comment detailing how the company works to assist people with the problems these programmers have - perhaps even to explain that yes, your company is in the business of maintaining legacy programs, because you are a long-standing company with a lot of legacy users who need that support, and that you offer plenty of training for these long-standing programs and for new recruits.
I don't know the full details of your company - but the bottom line of this is that the best way to deflect complaints like this is to tackle them head-on, and show that you are above these whiners - not to completely ignore them, but to overwhelm them with concern for their reported company issues.
Note - ideally, you would also actually be implementing these improvements, but in lieu of that, you can at least acknowledge these problems and explain steps that you plan to take to correct them.
add a comment |
up vote
14
down vote
up vote
14
down vote
Adding a response to complaints is the correct answer - but calling them each "fake" is the wrong answer.
When people leave a review on the company, and the feedback is negative, responding by calling it 'fake' does not leave the correct impression - it leads people to believe that your company sweeps problems under the rug and doesn't really care about negative feedback at all. While it might be frustrating to your CEO, if a problem is preported it should be addressed - and in a mature and level-headed manner.
The correct way to respond to these reviews is to address the issue - to leave a comment detailing how the company works to assist people with the problems these programmers have - perhaps even to explain that yes, your company is in the business of maintaining legacy programs, because you are a long-standing company with a lot of legacy users who need that support, and that you offer plenty of training for these long-standing programs and for new recruits.
I don't know the full details of your company - but the bottom line of this is that the best way to deflect complaints like this is to tackle them head-on, and show that you are above these whiners - not to completely ignore them, but to overwhelm them with concern for their reported company issues.
Note - ideally, you would also actually be implementing these improvements, but in lieu of that, you can at least acknowledge these problems and explain steps that you plan to take to correct them.
Adding a response to complaints is the correct answer - but calling them each "fake" is the wrong answer.
When people leave a review on the company, and the feedback is negative, responding by calling it 'fake' does not leave the correct impression - it leads people to believe that your company sweeps problems under the rug and doesn't really care about negative feedback at all. While it might be frustrating to your CEO, if a problem is preported it should be addressed - and in a mature and level-headed manner.
The correct way to respond to these reviews is to address the issue - to leave a comment detailing how the company works to assist people with the problems these programmers have - perhaps even to explain that yes, your company is in the business of maintaining legacy programs, because you are a long-standing company with a lot of legacy users who need that support, and that you offer plenty of training for these long-standing programs and for new recruits.
I don't know the full details of your company - but the bottom line of this is that the best way to deflect complaints like this is to tackle them head-on, and show that you are above these whiners - not to completely ignore them, but to overwhelm them with concern for their reported company issues.
Note - ideally, you would also actually be implementing these improvements, but in lieu of that, you can at least acknowledge these problems and explain steps that you plan to take to correct them.
answered 2 days ago
Zibbobz
6,85552455
6,85552455
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
14
down vote
Make it a positive experience. Leave a note on Glassdoor that says "Yes, your company's infrastructure is based on VB6 and SQL Server 7 and that it works nicely and meets your needs, and that you're happy with it, not planning on replacing it, and are looking for employees that are also happy with it." Also note that this wasn't a surprise and that the employee was told what the work was before accepting employment.
The world is full of people who would be thrilled to work with whatever technology you have.
The biggest thing you need to do is make sure you set their expectations from the start. You'll probably need to hire experienced, older devs and skip recent grads.
Glassdoor debacle?
It's only a debacle if you perceive it as such.
New contributor
2
This is an excellent answer!
– Fattie
yesterday
2
indeed. Short of catering to the people leaving bad reviews because they had incorrect assumptions about the work they'd be doing after getting hired there's little else you can do. If you're hired for a VB6 maintenance job but expect to be employed on a C# 2018 new development project, either you're delusional or the environment you'd be working in wasn't explained properly in the application process (which is also your responsibility for not asking about it).
– jwenting
18 hours ago
1
"Also note that this wasn't a surprise and that the employee was told what the work was before accepting employment" - nothing in the question suggests this is the case. Due to the global shortage of software devs, it's sadly common that companies who need devs are willing to resort to "bait and switch" tactics by being deceptive about what tech devs will work in. In contrast, because devs are in high demand, they are generally able to pick and choose what job they take based on the tech it involves, which is why it's rare that a dev will take a job that they know they aren't qualified for.
– Ian Kemp
15 hours ago
@jwenting I've been outright lied to before in job interviews. (The one that stands out in my memory is the one where my manager cited the Peter Principle, in slightly different words, as company policy, and at another time described a company as "bigger liars than we are".)
– David Thornley
6 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
14
down vote
Make it a positive experience. Leave a note on Glassdoor that says "Yes, your company's infrastructure is based on VB6 and SQL Server 7 and that it works nicely and meets your needs, and that you're happy with it, not planning on replacing it, and are looking for employees that are also happy with it." Also note that this wasn't a surprise and that the employee was told what the work was before accepting employment.
The world is full of people who would be thrilled to work with whatever technology you have.
The biggest thing you need to do is make sure you set their expectations from the start. You'll probably need to hire experienced, older devs and skip recent grads.
Glassdoor debacle?
It's only a debacle if you perceive it as such.
New contributor
2
This is an excellent answer!
– Fattie
yesterday
2
indeed. Short of catering to the people leaving bad reviews because they had incorrect assumptions about the work they'd be doing after getting hired there's little else you can do. If you're hired for a VB6 maintenance job but expect to be employed on a C# 2018 new development project, either you're delusional or the environment you'd be working in wasn't explained properly in the application process (which is also your responsibility for not asking about it).
– jwenting
18 hours ago
1
"Also note that this wasn't a surprise and that the employee was told what the work was before accepting employment" - nothing in the question suggests this is the case. Due to the global shortage of software devs, it's sadly common that companies who need devs are willing to resort to "bait and switch" tactics by being deceptive about what tech devs will work in. In contrast, because devs are in high demand, they are generally able to pick and choose what job they take based on the tech it involves, which is why it's rare that a dev will take a job that they know they aren't qualified for.
– Ian Kemp
15 hours ago
@jwenting I've been outright lied to before in job interviews. (The one that stands out in my memory is the one where my manager cited the Peter Principle, in slightly different words, as company policy, and at another time described a company as "bigger liars than we are".)
– David Thornley
6 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
14
down vote
up vote
14
down vote
Make it a positive experience. Leave a note on Glassdoor that says "Yes, your company's infrastructure is based on VB6 and SQL Server 7 and that it works nicely and meets your needs, and that you're happy with it, not planning on replacing it, and are looking for employees that are also happy with it." Also note that this wasn't a surprise and that the employee was told what the work was before accepting employment.
The world is full of people who would be thrilled to work with whatever technology you have.
The biggest thing you need to do is make sure you set their expectations from the start. You'll probably need to hire experienced, older devs and skip recent grads.
Glassdoor debacle?
It's only a debacle if you perceive it as such.
New contributor
Make it a positive experience. Leave a note on Glassdoor that says "Yes, your company's infrastructure is based on VB6 and SQL Server 7 and that it works nicely and meets your needs, and that you're happy with it, not planning on replacing it, and are looking for employees that are also happy with it." Also note that this wasn't a surprise and that the employee was told what the work was before accepting employment.
The world is full of people who would be thrilled to work with whatever technology you have.
The biggest thing you need to do is make sure you set their expectations from the start. You'll probably need to hire experienced, older devs and skip recent grads.
Glassdoor debacle?
It's only a debacle if you perceive it as such.
New contributor
edited yesterday
New contributor
answered 2 days ago
Terry Carmen
52717
52717
New contributor
New contributor
2
This is an excellent answer!
– Fattie
yesterday
2
indeed. Short of catering to the people leaving bad reviews because they had incorrect assumptions about the work they'd be doing after getting hired there's little else you can do. If you're hired for a VB6 maintenance job but expect to be employed on a C# 2018 new development project, either you're delusional or the environment you'd be working in wasn't explained properly in the application process (which is also your responsibility for not asking about it).
– jwenting
18 hours ago
1
"Also note that this wasn't a surprise and that the employee was told what the work was before accepting employment" - nothing in the question suggests this is the case. Due to the global shortage of software devs, it's sadly common that companies who need devs are willing to resort to "bait and switch" tactics by being deceptive about what tech devs will work in. In contrast, because devs are in high demand, they are generally able to pick and choose what job they take based on the tech it involves, which is why it's rare that a dev will take a job that they know they aren't qualified for.
– Ian Kemp
15 hours ago
@jwenting I've been outright lied to before in job interviews. (The one that stands out in my memory is the one where my manager cited the Peter Principle, in slightly different words, as company policy, and at another time described a company as "bigger liars than we are".)
– David Thornley
6 hours ago
add a comment |
2
This is an excellent answer!
– Fattie
yesterday
2
indeed. Short of catering to the people leaving bad reviews because they had incorrect assumptions about the work they'd be doing after getting hired there's little else you can do. If you're hired for a VB6 maintenance job but expect to be employed on a C# 2018 new development project, either you're delusional or the environment you'd be working in wasn't explained properly in the application process (which is also your responsibility for not asking about it).
– jwenting
18 hours ago
1
"Also note that this wasn't a surprise and that the employee was told what the work was before accepting employment" - nothing in the question suggests this is the case. Due to the global shortage of software devs, it's sadly common that companies who need devs are willing to resort to "bait and switch" tactics by being deceptive about what tech devs will work in. In contrast, because devs are in high demand, they are generally able to pick and choose what job they take based on the tech it involves, which is why it's rare that a dev will take a job that they know they aren't qualified for.
– Ian Kemp
15 hours ago
@jwenting I've been outright lied to before in job interviews. (The one that stands out in my memory is the one where my manager cited the Peter Principle, in slightly different words, as company policy, and at another time described a company as "bigger liars than we are".)
– David Thornley
6 hours ago
2
2
This is an excellent answer!
– Fattie
yesterday
This is an excellent answer!
– Fattie
yesterday
2
2
indeed. Short of catering to the people leaving bad reviews because they had incorrect assumptions about the work they'd be doing after getting hired there's little else you can do. If you're hired for a VB6 maintenance job but expect to be employed on a C# 2018 new development project, either you're delusional or the environment you'd be working in wasn't explained properly in the application process (which is also your responsibility for not asking about it).
– jwenting
18 hours ago
indeed. Short of catering to the people leaving bad reviews because they had incorrect assumptions about the work they'd be doing after getting hired there's little else you can do. If you're hired for a VB6 maintenance job but expect to be employed on a C# 2018 new development project, either you're delusional or the environment you'd be working in wasn't explained properly in the application process (which is also your responsibility for not asking about it).
– jwenting
18 hours ago
1
1
"Also note that this wasn't a surprise and that the employee was told what the work was before accepting employment" - nothing in the question suggests this is the case. Due to the global shortage of software devs, it's sadly common that companies who need devs are willing to resort to "bait and switch" tactics by being deceptive about what tech devs will work in. In contrast, because devs are in high demand, they are generally able to pick and choose what job they take based on the tech it involves, which is why it's rare that a dev will take a job that they know they aren't qualified for.
– Ian Kemp
15 hours ago
"Also note that this wasn't a surprise and that the employee was told what the work was before accepting employment" - nothing in the question suggests this is the case. Due to the global shortage of software devs, it's sadly common that companies who need devs are willing to resort to "bait and switch" tactics by being deceptive about what tech devs will work in. In contrast, because devs are in high demand, they are generally able to pick and choose what job they take based on the tech it involves, which is why it's rare that a dev will take a job that they know they aren't qualified for.
– Ian Kemp
15 hours ago
@jwenting I've been outright lied to before in job interviews. (The one that stands out in my memory is the one where my manager cited the Peter Principle, in slightly different words, as company policy, and at another time described a company as "bigger liars than we are".)
– David Thornley
6 hours ago
@jwenting I've been outright lied to before in job interviews. (The one that stands out in my memory is the one where my manager cited the Peter Principle, in slightly different words, as company policy, and at another time described a company as "bigger liars than we are".)
– David Thornley
6 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
8
down vote
There really is only two things that the management can do about this. One is long-term, and the other is short-term.
In the short-term...
Instead of inserting comments which call negative reviews "fake", someone who represents the company can address the individual case in a kind and humane way while also indicating the steps the company is taking to avoid this kind of problem in the future. This is the best way to handle hot-headed negative reviews, in some cases it can even be interpreted as a positive by readers.
In the long term...
Learn from the criticism they've received, and implement changes.
add a comment |
up vote
8
down vote
There really is only two things that the management can do about this. One is long-term, and the other is short-term.
In the short-term...
Instead of inserting comments which call negative reviews "fake", someone who represents the company can address the individual case in a kind and humane way while also indicating the steps the company is taking to avoid this kind of problem in the future. This is the best way to handle hot-headed negative reviews, in some cases it can even be interpreted as a positive by readers.
In the long term...
Learn from the criticism they've received, and implement changes.
add a comment |
up vote
8
down vote
up vote
8
down vote
There really is only two things that the management can do about this. One is long-term, and the other is short-term.
In the short-term...
Instead of inserting comments which call negative reviews "fake", someone who represents the company can address the individual case in a kind and humane way while also indicating the steps the company is taking to avoid this kind of problem in the future. This is the best way to handle hot-headed negative reviews, in some cases it can even be interpreted as a positive by readers.
In the long term...
Learn from the criticism they've received, and implement changes.
There really is only two things that the management can do about this. One is long-term, and the other is short-term.
In the short-term...
Instead of inserting comments which call negative reviews "fake", someone who represents the company can address the individual case in a kind and humane way while also indicating the steps the company is taking to avoid this kind of problem in the future. This is the best way to handle hot-headed negative reviews, in some cases it can even be interpreted as a positive by readers.
In the long term...
Learn from the criticism they've received, and implement changes.
answered 2 days ago
teego1967
10.9k42946
10.9k42946
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
6
down vote
I have seen this happening, and the net result was lowering the level of candidates for non-managerial jobs. Your CEO has work to do if he wants to rescue the company's reputation in the talent pool.
In terms of practical actions, the CEO needs to address this internally, prioritising complaints and reviewing the most urgent ones internally. Certainly, he doesn't want to brainstorm about those reviews with the whole organisation.
uh, no. The problem here is people having impossible expectations about the work environment it seems, rather than the company itself having a bad work environment.
– jwenting
18 hours ago
I disagree, but thanks for commenting.
– Monoandale
12 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
6
down vote
I have seen this happening, and the net result was lowering the level of candidates for non-managerial jobs. Your CEO has work to do if he wants to rescue the company's reputation in the talent pool.
In terms of practical actions, the CEO needs to address this internally, prioritising complaints and reviewing the most urgent ones internally. Certainly, he doesn't want to brainstorm about those reviews with the whole organisation.
uh, no. The problem here is people having impossible expectations about the work environment it seems, rather than the company itself having a bad work environment.
– jwenting
18 hours ago
I disagree, but thanks for commenting.
– Monoandale
12 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
6
down vote
up vote
6
down vote
I have seen this happening, and the net result was lowering the level of candidates for non-managerial jobs. Your CEO has work to do if he wants to rescue the company's reputation in the talent pool.
In terms of practical actions, the CEO needs to address this internally, prioritising complaints and reviewing the most urgent ones internally. Certainly, he doesn't want to brainstorm about those reviews with the whole organisation.
I have seen this happening, and the net result was lowering the level of candidates for non-managerial jobs. Your CEO has work to do if he wants to rescue the company's reputation in the talent pool.
In terms of practical actions, the CEO needs to address this internally, prioritising complaints and reviewing the most urgent ones internally. Certainly, he doesn't want to brainstorm about those reviews with the whole organisation.
answered 2 days ago
Monoandale
2,87041849
2,87041849
uh, no. The problem here is people having impossible expectations about the work environment it seems, rather than the company itself having a bad work environment.
– jwenting
18 hours ago
I disagree, but thanks for commenting.
– Monoandale
12 hours ago
add a comment |
uh, no. The problem here is people having impossible expectations about the work environment it seems, rather than the company itself having a bad work environment.
– jwenting
18 hours ago
I disagree, but thanks for commenting.
– Monoandale
12 hours ago
uh, no. The problem here is people having impossible expectations about the work environment it seems, rather than the company itself having a bad work environment.
– jwenting
18 hours ago
uh, no. The problem here is people having impossible expectations about the work environment it seems, rather than the company itself having a bad work environment.
– jwenting
18 hours ago
I disagree, but thanks for commenting.
– Monoandale
12 hours ago
I disagree, but thanks for commenting.
– Monoandale
12 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
Simple: pay considerably above the market rate.
That's what many "leading" technology companies do. This brings in lots of candidates to the job interviews, and retains (locks in) existing employees. Of course this requires that company is making money or has regular investment rounds, but if that were not the case, I imagine you wouldn't be asking :)
The above is the easy part. The hard part is how to get healthier company culture adopted. That takes time, but if you solve that, you wouldn't have to worry about a bad review or two.
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
Simple: pay considerably above the market rate.
That's what many "leading" technology companies do. This brings in lots of candidates to the job interviews, and retains (locks in) existing employees. Of course this requires that company is making money or has regular investment rounds, but if that were not the case, I imagine you wouldn't be asking :)
The above is the easy part. The hard part is how to get healthier company culture adopted. That takes time, but if you solve that, you wouldn't have to worry about a bad review or two.
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
up vote
3
down vote
Simple: pay considerably above the market rate.
That's what many "leading" technology companies do. This brings in lots of candidates to the job interviews, and retains (locks in) existing employees. Of course this requires that company is making money or has regular investment rounds, but if that were not the case, I imagine you wouldn't be asking :)
The above is the easy part. The hard part is how to get healthier company culture adopted. That takes time, but if you solve that, you wouldn't have to worry about a bad review or two.
Simple: pay considerably above the market rate.
That's what many "leading" technology companies do. This brings in lots of candidates to the job interviews, and retains (locks in) existing employees. Of course this requires that company is making money or has regular investment rounds, but if that were not the case, I imagine you wouldn't be asking :)
The above is the easy part. The hard part is how to get healthier company culture adopted. That takes time, but if you solve that, you wouldn't have to worry about a bad review or two.
answered 13 hours ago
Dima Tisnek
24816
24816
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
These are centered mostly around the use of old technologies, the inability of management to keep pace with newer tech, and the disappointment of new hires at having to write legacy code right out of the door.
That's good to have in there. This is just the kind of information you want prospective applicants/new hires to have. If they know this going in, you're likely to have better retention and higher worker satisfaction (which also positively affects productivity). Management should probably even put this information in the job description for applicants who don't read Glassdoor. If you can't get people on when that's accurately disclosed, increase salary or other relevant attraction factors. Don't deceive applicants about the type of technology or work they're being hired to do.
Many of them are emotional and some come off a bit bratty, but it's encouraged others to do the same.
If you can tell from reading it that a post is emotional/bratty, probably so can a prospective applicant, who can also discount the value of that review appropriately.
When reading through reviews (for a job or anything else) I find that the negative reviews where people complain about petty things can be some of the most convincing to get me to buy in. If people are complaining about little things, and there are enough reviews that more major issues likely would have been included, that usually means the important things are all at least OK, maybe quite good. "I was hired as a COBOL developer and they just have me writing COBOL for 8 hours a day; so boring" was maybe intended as negative but it'd be a plus in that company's column for me and probably other readers.
Sometimes the effect is even more direct. The coffee is cold on the devs' corporate yacht, and the salary for remote work is only enough to rent a mid-size apartment in San Francisco or Manhattan? Where do I go to sign up?
Assuming I were the CEO or had a place in management, what could I do regarding damage control?
Fix your job descriptions so people know what they are getting into.
If there are other problems being raised in the reviews, think about whether or not those are issues the company can/should fix and if so, how.
If you know of particular loyal employees who are having a good experience, consider asking them to write reviews, to help attract new colleagues.
Also, keep in mind that the percentage of potential applicants/employees who read Glassdoor is lower than you might expect.
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
These are centered mostly around the use of old technologies, the inability of management to keep pace with newer tech, and the disappointment of new hires at having to write legacy code right out of the door.
That's good to have in there. This is just the kind of information you want prospective applicants/new hires to have. If they know this going in, you're likely to have better retention and higher worker satisfaction (which also positively affects productivity). Management should probably even put this information in the job description for applicants who don't read Glassdoor. If you can't get people on when that's accurately disclosed, increase salary or other relevant attraction factors. Don't deceive applicants about the type of technology or work they're being hired to do.
Many of them are emotional and some come off a bit bratty, but it's encouraged others to do the same.
If you can tell from reading it that a post is emotional/bratty, probably so can a prospective applicant, who can also discount the value of that review appropriately.
When reading through reviews (for a job or anything else) I find that the negative reviews where people complain about petty things can be some of the most convincing to get me to buy in. If people are complaining about little things, and there are enough reviews that more major issues likely would have been included, that usually means the important things are all at least OK, maybe quite good. "I was hired as a COBOL developer and they just have me writing COBOL for 8 hours a day; so boring" was maybe intended as negative but it'd be a plus in that company's column for me and probably other readers.
Sometimes the effect is even more direct. The coffee is cold on the devs' corporate yacht, and the salary for remote work is only enough to rent a mid-size apartment in San Francisco or Manhattan? Where do I go to sign up?
Assuming I were the CEO or had a place in management, what could I do regarding damage control?
Fix your job descriptions so people know what they are getting into.
If there are other problems being raised in the reviews, think about whether or not those are issues the company can/should fix and if so, how.
If you know of particular loyal employees who are having a good experience, consider asking them to write reviews, to help attract new colleagues.
Also, keep in mind that the percentage of potential applicants/employees who read Glassdoor is lower than you might expect.
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
up vote
3
down vote
These are centered mostly around the use of old technologies, the inability of management to keep pace with newer tech, and the disappointment of new hires at having to write legacy code right out of the door.
That's good to have in there. This is just the kind of information you want prospective applicants/new hires to have. If they know this going in, you're likely to have better retention and higher worker satisfaction (which also positively affects productivity). Management should probably even put this information in the job description for applicants who don't read Glassdoor. If you can't get people on when that's accurately disclosed, increase salary or other relevant attraction factors. Don't deceive applicants about the type of technology or work they're being hired to do.
Many of them are emotional and some come off a bit bratty, but it's encouraged others to do the same.
If you can tell from reading it that a post is emotional/bratty, probably so can a prospective applicant, who can also discount the value of that review appropriately.
When reading through reviews (for a job or anything else) I find that the negative reviews where people complain about petty things can be some of the most convincing to get me to buy in. If people are complaining about little things, and there are enough reviews that more major issues likely would have been included, that usually means the important things are all at least OK, maybe quite good. "I was hired as a COBOL developer and they just have me writing COBOL for 8 hours a day; so boring" was maybe intended as negative but it'd be a plus in that company's column for me and probably other readers.
Sometimes the effect is even more direct. The coffee is cold on the devs' corporate yacht, and the salary for remote work is only enough to rent a mid-size apartment in San Francisco or Manhattan? Where do I go to sign up?
Assuming I were the CEO or had a place in management, what could I do regarding damage control?
Fix your job descriptions so people know what they are getting into.
If there are other problems being raised in the reviews, think about whether or not those are issues the company can/should fix and if so, how.
If you know of particular loyal employees who are having a good experience, consider asking them to write reviews, to help attract new colleagues.
Also, keep in mind that the percentage of potential applicants/employees who read Glassdoor is lower than you might expect.
These are centered mostly around the use of old technologies, the inability of management to keep pace with newer tech, and the disappointment of new hires at having to write legacy code right out of the door.
That's good to have in there. This is just the kind of information you want prospective applicants/new hires to have. If they know this going in, you're likely to have better retention and higher worker satisfaction (which also positively affects productivity). Management should probably even put this information in the job description for applicants who don't read Glassdoor. If you can't get people on when that's accurately disclosed, increase salary or other relevant attraction factors. Don't deceive applicants about the type of technology or work they're being hired to do.
Many of them are emotional and some come off a bit bratty, but it's encouraged others to do the same.
If you can tell from reading it that a post is emotional/bratty, probably so can a prospective applicant, who can also discount the value of that review appropriately.
When reading through reviews (for a job or anything else) I find that the negative reviews where people complain about petty things can be some of the most convincing to get me to buy in. If people are complaining about little things, and there are enough reviews that more major issues likely would have been included, that usually means the important things are all at least OK, maybe quite good. "I was hired as a COBOL developer and they just have me writing COBOL for 8 hours a day; so boring" was maybe intended as negative but it'd be a plus in that company's column for me and probably other readers.
Sometimes the effect is even more direct. The coffee is cold on the devs' corporate yacht, and the salary for remote work is only enough to rent a mid-size apartment in San Francisco or Manhattan? Where do I go to sign up?
Assuming I were the CEO or had a place in management, what could I do regarding damage control?
Fix your job descriptions so people know what they are getting into.
If there are other problems being raised in the reviews, think about whether or not those are issues the company can/should fix and if so, how.
If you know of particular loyal employees who are having a good experience, consider asking them to write reviews, to help attract new colleagues.
Also, keep in mind that the percentage of potential applicants/employees who read Glassdoor is lower than you might expect.
edited 6 hours ago
answered 6 hours ago
WBT
1,13611017
1,13611017
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
The only two correct responses are actually fixing the issues and making a large pr move promising to fix the issues that shows what you're doing for your devs and how it's making their life easier.
The latter is very similar to a popular strategy used by youtubers when they get caught in unsavory light. The thing this response affords a company to do is pretend to fix the problem and convince their audience that it's been fixed without actually fixing anything. Youtube itself also employs this strategy.
You don't have to fix anything, if you've made it look like you've fixed everything.
If you don't want to just lie until people agree with you, then you could try being more transparent about what the job actually is, or you can stop making the decision to work for your company something that's massively career limiting by refusing to use modern frameworks that would give your devs relevant experience to put on their resume when applying to better places. You could also try offsetting the garbage work conditions with perks like more time off, more time off, or modern work practices like working from home, unlimited PTO, or unlimited sick days.
Those are really the only good responses. The rest are just going to see the company go really negative as far as hiring PR is concerned.
Perks definitely count. But did you really mean unlimited PTO? That’s impossible.
– LN6595
2 days ago
@LN6595 I've seen it on a few job listings. Usually it has to be within reason and it seems to be working out for these companies. I assume you'd still get fired if you took a ton of time off for no reason. Tbh I'm not sure how it works, but I have seen it offered.
– Steve
2 days ago
And if the "issues" turn out to be mostly one disgruntled employee who's smart enough to evade the duplicate user checks.
– Joshua
yesterday
@Joshua then reap the rewards of being an employer that attracts talent with good work policies. Gotta stop worrying about punishment, it takes too much of your resources.
– Steve
yesterday
We're not worried about punishment. We're worried about hiring.
– Joshua
22 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
up vote
2
down vote
The only two correct responses are actually fixing the issues and making a large pr move promising to fix the issues that shows what you're doing for your devs and how it's making their life easier.
The latter is very similar to a popular strategy used by youtubers when they get caught in unsavory light. The thing this response affords a company to do is pretend to fix the problem and convince their audience that it's been fixed without actually fixing anything. Youtube itself also employs this strategy.
You don't have to fix anything, if you've made it look like you've fixed everything.
If you don't want to just lie until people agree with you, then you could try being more transparent about what the job actually is, or you can stop making the decision to work for your company something that's massively career limiting by refusing to use modern frameworks that would give your devs relevant experience to put on their resume when applying to better places. You could also try offsetting the garbage work conditions with perks like more time off, more time off, or modern work practices like working from home, unlimited PTO, or unlimited sick days.
Those are really the only good responses. The rest are just going to see the company go really negative as far as hiring PR is concerned.
Perks definitely count. But did you really mean unlimited PTO? That’s impossible.
– LN6595
2 days ago
@LN6595 I've seen it on a few job listings. Usually it has to be within reason and it seems to be working out for these companies. I assume you'd still get fired if you took a ton of time off for no reason. Tbh I'm not sure how it works, but I have seen it offered.
– Steve
2 days ago
And if the "issues" turn out to be mostly one disgruntled employee who's smart enough to evade the duplicate user checks.
– Joshua
yesterday
@Joshua then reap the rewards of being an employer that attracts talent with good work policies. Gotta stop worrying about punishment, it takes too much of your resources.
– Steve
yesterday
We're not worried about punishment. We're worried about hiring.
– Joshua
22 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
The only two correct responses are actually fixing the issues and making a large pr move promising to fix the issues that shows what you're doing for your devs and how it's making their life easier.
The latter is very similar to a popular strategy used by youtubers when they get caught in unsavory light. The thing this response affords a company to do is pretend to fix the problem and convince their audience that it's been fixed without actually fixing anything. Youtube itself also employs this strategy.
You don't have to fix anything, if you've made it look like you've fixed everything.
If you don't want to just lie until people agree with you, then you could try being more transparent about what the job actually is, or you can stop making the decision to work for your company something that's massively career limiting by refusing to use modern frameworks that would give your devs relevant experience to put on their resume when applying to better places. You could also try offsetting the garbage work conditions with perks like more time off, more time off, or modern work practices like working from home, unlimited PTO, or unlimited sick days.
Those are really the only good responses. The rest are just going to see the company go really negative as far as hiring PR is concerned.
The only two correct responses are actually fixing the issues and making a large pr move promising to fix the issues that shows what you're doing for your devs and how it's making their life easier.
The latter is very similar to a popular strategy used by youtubers when they get caught in unsavory light. The thing this response affords a company to do is pretend to fix the problem and convince their audience that it's been fixed without actually fixing anything. Youtube itself also employs this strategy.
You don't have to fix anything, if you've made it look like you've fixed everything.
If you don't want to just lie until people agree with you, then you could try being more transparent about what the job actually is, or you can stop making the decision to work for your company something that's massively career limiting by refusing to use modern frameworks that would give your devs relevant experience to put on their resume when applying to better places. You could also try offsetting the garbage work conditions with perks like more time off, more time off, or modern work practices like working from home, unlimited PTO, or unlimited sick days.
Those are really the only good responses. The rest are just going to see the company go really negative as far as hiring PR is concerned.
edited yesterday
answered 2 days ago
Steve
1,143314
1,143314
Perks definitely count. But did you really mean unlimited PTO? That’s impossible.
– LN6595
2 days ago
@LN6595 I've seen it on a few job listings. Usually it has to be within reason and it seems to be working out for these companies. I assume you'd still get fired if you took a ton of time off for no reason. Tbh I'm not sure how it works, but I have seen it offered.
– Steve
2 days ago
And if the "issues" turn out to be mostly one disgruntled employee who's smart enough to evade the duplicate user checks.
– Joshua
yesterday
@Joshua then reap the rewards of being an employer that attracts talent with good work policies. Gotta stop worrying about punishment, it takes too much of your resources.
– Steve
yesterday
We're not worried about punishment. We're worried about hiring.
– Joshua
22 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
Perks definitely count. But did you really mean unlimited PTO? That’s impossible.
– LN6595
2 days ago
@LN6595 I've seen it on a few job listings. Usually it has to be within reason and it seems to be working out for these companies. I assume you'd still get fired if you took a ton of time off for no reason. Tbh I'm not sure how it works, but I have seen it offered.
– Steve
2 days ago
And if the "issues" turn out to be mostly one disgruntled employee who's smart enough to evade the duplicate user checks.
– Joshua
yesterday
@Joshua then reap the rewards of being an employer that attracts talent with good work policies. Gotta stop worrying about punishment, it takes too much of your resources.
– Steve
yesterday
We're not worried about punishment. We're worried about hiring.
– Joshua
22 hours ago
Perks definitely count. But did you really mean unlimited PTO? That’s impossible.
– LN6595
2 days ago
Perks definitely count. But did you really mean unlimited PTO? That’s impossible.
– LN6595
2 days ago
@LN6595 I've seen it on a few job listings. Usually it has to be within reason and it seems to be working out for these companies. I assume you'd still get fired if you took a ton of time off for no reason. Tbh I'm not sure how it works, but I have seen it offered.
– Steve
2 days ago
@LN6595 I've seen it on a few job listings. Usually it has to be within reason and it seems to be working out for these companies. I assume you'd still get fired if you took a ton of time off for no reason. Tbh I'm not sure how it works, but I have seen it offered.
– Steve
2 days ago
And if the "issues" turn out to be mostly one disgruntled employee who's smart enough to evade the duplicate user checks.
– Joshua
yesterday
And if the "issues" turn out to be mostly one disgruntled employee who's smart enough to evade the duplicate user checks.
– Joshua
yesterday
@Joshua then reap the rewards of being an employer that attracts talent with good work policies. Gotta stop worrying about punishment, it takes too much of your resources.
– Steve
yesterday
@Joshua then reap the rewards of being an employer that attracts talent with good work policies. Gotta stop worrying about punishment, it takes too much of your resources.
– Steve
yesterday
We're not worried about punishment. We're worried about hiring.
– Joshua
22 hours ago
We're not worried about punishment. We're worried about hiring.
– Joshua
22 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
up vote
1
down vote
Well, one possibility could be to use the critics and try to solve some issues, e.g. by using more modern practices and spend more time in refactoring your legacy code problem. When things change and become more positive for each of the employees, then they may change the review.
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
Well, one possibility could be to use the critics and try to solve some issues, e.g. by using more modern practices and spend more time in refactoring your legacy code problem. When things change and become more positive for each of the employees, then they may change the review.
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
Well, one possibility could be to use the critics and try to solve some issues, e.g. by using more modern practices and spend more time in refactoring your legacy code problem. When things change and become more positive for each of the employees, then they may change the review.
Well, one possibility could be to use the critics and try to solve some issues, e.g. by using more modern practices and spend more time in refactoring your legacy code problem. When things change and become more positive for each of the employees, then they may change the review.
answered yesterday
dgrat
7116
7116
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
-8
down vote
Assuming I was the CEO or had a place in management, what could I do regarding damage control?
As long as your company has money to pay salary, you'd always have a team of coding monkeys at your service. There's nothing you or the company should do, clients don't read Glassdoors. Bad candidates? Raise salary or/and employee benefits.
Ask employees, directly or indirectly, to write some good reviews instead.
This is also a possibility. It can also be part of the job; everybody will need to submit a positive review to Glassdoor, reviewed by management.
35
If I was required as part of my job to write a positive work review at my company on any platform, you can bet I'd be writing at least 3 bad ones when I got home that day.
– Sam
2 days ago
29
"This is also a possibility. It can also be part of the job; everybody will need to submit a positive review to Glassdoor." Sounds like, what's the word, extortion? Blackmail?
– jo1storm
2 days ago
10
@bharal Unless the employees are allowed to clearly label their reviews as "company's social engagement efforts", it's pretty much blackmail.
– Dmitry Grigoryev
2 days ago
9
The suggestion of having employees submit positive reviews on glassdoor as "part of the job" reads like an attempt at parody. You can't possibly be serious.
– teego1967
2 days ago
11
@teego1967 My previous company did actually request employees to submit positive Glassdoor reviews, to counter the many negative (and completely justified) reviews from leavers. I'm not aware of anyone apart from board members who actually did submit a positive review. All it did was prompt the rest of us to check Glassdoor and say "yup, that's about right".
– Graham
2 days ago
|
show 5 more comments
up vote
-8
down vote
Assuming I was the CEO or had a place in management, what could I do regarding damage control?
As long as your company has money to pay salary, you'd always have a team of coding monkeys at your service. There's nothing you or the company should do, clients don't read Glassdoors. Bad candidates? Raise salary or/and employee benefits.
Ask employees, directly or indirectly, to write some good reviews instead.
This is also a possibility. It can also be part of the job; everybody will need to submit a positive review to Glassdoor, reviewed by management.
35
If I was required as part of my job to write a positive work review at my company on any platform, you can bet I'd be writing at least 3 bad ones when I got home that day.
– Sam
2 days ago
29
"This is also a possibility. It can also be part of the job; everybody will need to submit a positive review to Glassdoor." Sounds like, what's the word, extortion? Blackmail?
– jo1storm
2 days ago
10
@bharal Unless the employees are allowed to clearly label their reviews as "company's social engagement efforts", it's pretty much blackmail.
– Dmitry Grigoryev
2 days ago
9
The suggestion of having employees submit positive reviews on glassdoor as "part of the job" reads like an attempt at parody. You can't possibly be serious.
– teego1967
2 days ago
11
@teego1967 My previous company did actually request employees to submit positive Glassdoor reviews, to counter the many negative (and completely justified) reviews from leavers. I'm not aware of anyone apart from board members who actually did submit a positive review. All it did was prompt the rest of us to check Glassdoor and say "yup, that's about right".
– Graham
2 days ago
|
show 5 more comments
up vote
-8
down vote
up vote
-8
down vote
Assuming I was the CEO or had a place in management, what could I do regarding damage control?
As long as your company has money to pay salary, you'd always have a team of coding monkeys at your service. There's nothing you or the company should do, clients don't read Glassdoors. Bad candidates? Raise salary or/and employee benefits.
Ask employees, directly or indirectly, to write some good reviews instead.
This is also a possibility. It can also be part of the job; everybody will need to submit a positive review to Glassdoor, reviewed by management.
Assuming I was the CEO or had a place in management, what could I do regarding damage control?
As long as your company has money to pay salary, you'd always have a team of coding monkeys at your service. There's nothing you or the company should do, clients don't read Glassdoors. Bad candidates? Raise salary or/and employee benefits.
Ask employees, directly or indirectly, to write some good reviews instead.
This is also a possibility. It can also be part of the job; everybody will need to submit a positive review to Glassdoor, reviewed by management.
edited yesterday
Mawg
3,60611032
3,60611032
answered 2 days ago
SmallChess
1,1503621
1,1503621
35
If I was required as part of my job to write a positive work review at my company on any platform, you can bet I'd be writing at least 3 bad ones when I got home that day.
– Sam
2 days ago
29
"This is also a possibility. It can also be part of the job; everybody will need to submit a positive review to Glassdoor." Sounds like, what's the word, extortion? Blackmail?
– jo1storm
2 days ago
10
@bharal Unless the employees are allowed to clearly label their reviews as "company's social engagement efforts", it's pretty much blackmail.
– Dmitry Grigoryev
2 days ago
9
The suggestion of having employees submit positive reviews on glassdoor as "part of the job" reads like an attempt at parody. You can't possibly be serious.
– teego1967
2 days ago
11
@teego1967 My previous company did actually request employees to submit positive Glassdoor reviews, to counter the many negative (and completely justified) reviews from leavers. I'm not aware of anyone apart from board members who actually did submit a positive review. All it did was prompt the rest of us to check Glassdoor and say "yup, that's about right".
– Graham
2 days ago
|
show 5 more comments
35
If I was required as part of my job to write a positive work review at my company on any platform, you can bet I'd be writing at least 3 bad ones when I got home that day.
– Sam
2 days ago
29
"This is also a possibility. It can also be part of the job; everybody will need to submit a positive review to Glassdoor." Sounds like, what's the word, extortion? Blackmail?
– jo1storm
2 days ago
10
@bharal Unless the employees are allowed to clearly label their reviews as "company's social engagement efforts", it's pretty much blackmail.
– Dmitry Grigoryev
2 days ago
9
The suggestion of having employees submit positive reviews on glassdoor as "part of the job" reads like an attempt at parody. You can't possibly be serious.
– teego1967
2 days ago
11
@teego1967 My previous company did actually request employees to submit positive Glassdoor reviews, to counter the many negative (and completely justified) reviews from leavers. I'm not aware of anyone apart from board members who actually did submit a positive review. All it did was prompt the rest of us to check Glassdoor and say "yup, that's about right".
– Graham
2 days ago
35
35
If I was required as part of my job to write a positive work review at my company on any platform, you can bet I'd be writing at least 3 bad ones when I got home that day.
– Sam
2 days ago
If I was required as part of my job to write a positive work review at my company on any platform, you can bet I'd be writing at least 3 bad ones when I got home that day.
– Sam
2 days ago
29
29
"This is also a possibility. It can also be part of the job; everybody will need to submit a positive review to Glassdoor." Sounds like, what's the word, extortion? Blackmail?
– jo1storm
2 days ago
"This is also a possibility. It can also be part of the job; everybody will need to submit a positive review to Glassdoor." Sounds like, what's the word, extortion? Blackmail?
– jo1storm
2 days ago
10
10
@bharal Unless the employees are allowed to clearly label their reviews as "company's social engagement efforts", it's pretty much blackmail.
– Dmitry Grigoryev
2 days ago
@bharal Unless the employees are allowed to clearly label their reviews as "company's social engagement efforts", it's pretty much blackmail.
– Dmitry Grigoryev
2 days ago
9
9
The suggestion of having employees submit positive reviews on glassdoor as "part of the job" reads like an attempt at parody. You can't possibly be serious.
– teego1967
2 days ago
The suggestion of having employees submit positive reviews on glassdoor as "part of the job" reads like an attempt at parody. You can't possibly be serious.
– teego1967
2 days ago
11
11
@teego1967 My previous company did actually request employees to submit positive Glassdoor reviews, to counter the many negative (and completely justified) reviews from leavers. I'm not aware of anyone apart from board members who actually did submit a positive review. All it did was prompt the rest of us to check Glassdoor and say "yup, that's about right".
– Graham
2 days ago
@teego1967 My previous company did actually request employees to submit positive Glassdoor reviews, to counter the many negative (and completely justified) reviews from leavers. I'm not aware of anyone apart from board members who actually did submit a positive review. All it did was prompt the rest of us to check Glassdoor and say "yup, that's about right".
– Graham
2 days ago
|
show 5 more comments
protected by mcknz yesterday
Thank you for your interest in this question.
Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).
Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?
4
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
– Jane S♦
2 days ago
"and the disappointment of new hires at having to write legacy code right out of the door." As a greybeard who had to write a lot of legacy code right out of college when I'd have rather written Turbo Pascal, and yet did it anyway without (much) whining -- and certainly not quitting -- this reaffirms my opinion of The Youth Of Today.
– RonJohn
4 hours ago