Forbes recently released their list of the 2011 Best Companies to Work for. The top companies boast "fat paychecks, sweet perks, fun colleagues, and over 150,000 jobs ready to be filled" and include:
1. SAS
2. Boston Consulting Group
3. Wegmans Food Markets
4. Google
5. NetApp
6. Zappos.com
7. Camden Property Trust
8. Nugget Market
9. REI
10. Dreamworks
Maybe your company made the list, maybe not (mine is #68). So what does this mean for a company and their marketing - for future employees, current employees, customers, suppliers, distributors, stockholders, communities where they operate? To me, this is marketing to it's fullest extent. Where else can a list make a company move up (or down) in the eyes of so many people and potentially have such a broad impact on canidates and performance in the next year?
I would like to hear from my classmates with your thoughts. Do you agree that the list should carry the weight it does? Or maybe you don't think the list carries any weight at all? Do you believe (or maybe you know) that companies spend money promoting themselves to get onto this list, only to then have marketing occur between all the people listed above because the company is on this list? Do you look at this list when you are looking for a new job to narrow your search criteria or to select companies to interview with because of their presence on this list? Do you see this list as a marketing tool as I have suggested in this blog?
I think that this list should carry the weight it does because it gives people a look at the companies in which employees are the happiest. Some people are out to the get the highest salary possible, and more often than not, they are unhappy with their working conditions. I think a list like this is valuable to the job seeker as an indicator to which companies have the happiest employees. If you value the quality of your work life, you may consider taking less salary in order to work in an environment in which your co-workers will be happier.
ReplyDeleteI do look at this list when I am looking at potential companies to which to apply. Quality of work life is important to me. I do see how a company could market itself in order to get lower on the list, but ultimately it has to market itself to its own employees as this is a measurement of internal employee satisfaction.
I believe this list does carry some weight; however people should do some homework before assuming all of the "perks" to be true. For example, I have a friend who works at BCG in New York, and while she does like it there, she says the workload is drastically understated when you are in the application process. In other words, they might say "expect a 60 hour work week", when it in reality it is more like 80 hours.
ReplyDeleteI am not sure if one company can be used as a proxy for the whole list, but this information was anecdotal for me nonetheless.
I look at this list every year and instantly am jealous of the perks and benefits that are listed. However as Ray said, how true is it for every employee. Have you ever heard of the web site glassdoor.com? It is posting by people who have worked for a company or currently do work there that give their opinions of what really goes on behind the closed doors and the inner workings of the company.
ReplyDeleteAs a marketing tool this article is great publicity for the companies. And I'm sure it leads to sworms of applicate (if they by chance has openings). However, what level of talent are they going to attract? The ones who are simply looking for the perks, or the one who are really going to be dedicated to their work. If this is the case it could be a double edge sword for the companies listed.
I looked at this list as soon as it came out and have considered applying to some of these companies, so it has been an effective marketing tool on me at least. While I didn't fully trust every word in the article, I thought there must be some reason the companies were included. Once I looked into what some of the companies actually do, however, I lost interest. I agree with Stacy. If you're applying to these companies because they are on this list, how passionate would you be about the work?
ReplyDeleteI can easily see the companies themselves promoting their place on the list aggressively. My company was rated one of the top medium-sized companies to work for back in 2006 and the "Best Companies To Work For" logo is still on our website.
Hi Sarah,
ReplyDeleteThis topic is always an interesting one for me. My initial thoughts are yes, the list should carry weight. After all, did you see all the perks that employees at SAS have? However, I have experienced that some of the companies that make the list have no right being there. For example, Citibank was on the list for a long time and as an ex-employee of Citi, I can tell you it was not “one of the best companies to work for”.
In addition to that, Quicken seems to make the list every year yet being in the banking industry I have yet to meet an employee that didn’t have poor things to say about their work experience there (current and prior employees). As a result, I have found the list does not provide credible recommendations for me and carries minimal weight when I am looking for a new job. I tend to lean more towards personal or professional recommendations rather than this list. That could be compared to the survey concept of asking people if they would refer your company to a friend rather than just asking if they are satisfied. The results will likely be different.
Hi Sarah,
ReplyDeleteGreat post. As someone who works in HR, I can tell you that organizations pay attention to lists like this and do their best to get on them. They are excellent marketing pieces that attract top talent. But I agree with the other comments that you need to evaluate these lists with a grain of salt. The criteria for making these lists are not always openly disclosed. Most of the time organizations are chosen based on self-applications, not based on surveying or nomination of employees. In fact, many large organizations have full time members of their HR communications/ recruiting teams who work on identifying these types of employment awards and applying for them. Believe me - they are gifted at crafting messages and finding stats and info to support their company’s case. Not to mention many of these lists require hefty application fees of many thousands of dollars. So, as with all marketing messages, it’s important to evaluate the criteria for the claims and remember what organizations are trying to “sell” you.
It also made me question whether these types of awards are lessening in their power and importance. The awards are built on the premise that organizations are “selling” their employment opportunities to potential employees. This worked in the past when attracting talent was a key organizational concern. In today’s employment environment, the value proposition has turned around and the onus is now more on applicants to sell their value to organizations. Many of the “extras” organizations used to offer have been cut and/or are no longer really that essential to attracting high performers. In the past few years, organizations have been able to attract talent by just offering a secure position and good benefits. But as the employment market turns around, this may no longer be the case. Retaining, not attracting, talent will become even more important. And when it comes to retaining employees, they don’t care what award you’ve won, they care what you actually do.