The Problem With “Best Place to Work” Lists

I have worked for multiple "Best place to work". The problem with these list is that the baseline is all places (with many exceptions) are a great place to work. Why? Because if it isn't, you won't be there. It's a self selection problem. You only stay at places that you like. So, when the survey comes around, chances are you are surveying people that like the place they work at.

Therefore, the basis of comparison become the perks.

However, I absolutely agree. There is no way one can evaluate a place on its culture, on its heart and soul base on these lists. You can never decide if that place would be a great place for you just because it's on the list.

It's comparable to the "Best place to live". Some say New York, some say little town, some say coast, etc. The best place to live for you is only the best place to live for you.

oh no. I don't think EVERYONE. I just think that by self selection, surveys would skew toward people who chose not to stay there.

But I absolutely agree that today's economy does add a layer of complexity.

@Amanda - I'd be really interested in seeing how they'd rank on a Best Place to Work list!

@Ryan, thanks for sharing your insights.

I'm loving these "inside scoop" stories... keep them coming!

@Grace - Thanks for joining the conversation (and for your compliments)!

I was talking to fellow HR blogger Lance Haun from Your HR Guy the other day about this article, and he mentioned that magazines like Fortune write about the perks because it's easier to talk about than organizational culture. I wonder if that's why you talk about perks with your friends - it's easier to explain than the culture.

From the perks you listed, I get the impression your company culture is laid back, has a focus on working AND playing hard, and provides you with a lot of autonomy over your work. If they didn't give you beer (but you could bring your own), or didn't pay for happy hour (but still encouraged you and your coworkers to meet after work and socialize), would you still love working their?

I can't answer that for you, but I'd guess you would, because the culture would be the same. The perks are indications of the culture - they don't actually create it.

Those things are nice to have, but I'm willing to bet they're not what you really LOVE about the company. (Don't get me wrong, who can argue with free beer?)

I think that the lists focus on things such as dry cleaning, childcare, pet friendly, etc. is because they are easily quantifiable criteria and easy to compare across organizations. You can't measure culture or boil it down to just benefits offered to employees.

I agree with you Chris.

Maybe the companies that offer tangible benefits are more likely to offer things that truly benefits employees, like training, mentoring, a work environment to fosters development.

Chris - you have a great point! Actually, the more foundational cultural aspects that you point out are EXACTLY what lands a company on the Fortune list. I work for Great Place to Work Institute - we're the organization that creates the list every year that is published in Fortune (www.greatplacetowork.com). It's a very extensive process: 2/3 of the score for a company's application is based on an employee survey that measures people's trust in management (whether management is credible, perceived as competent, communicates well, listens to employees and involves them in decisions, develops people, respects people as humans not just employees, hands out promotions fairly, etc. etc.) as well as their pride in their work and the company, and camaraderie with the people who work there. 1/3 is based on practices - what management does to create trust, pride, camaraderie. The application and evaluation process takes months every year. It's not about the perks - and yet, the perks are what end up being highlighted in the magazine.

Of course, not every employee is going to have a good experience with a company, even a best company - the comment above about people needing to be at a company that's right for them is really true as well. But at best companies we see a very high percentage of respondents saying they trust management, feel respected as a professional and person, etc. - and you don't find that at a lot of organizations.

Good point. And I think you're right that perks are easier to talk about (and maybe sell more magazines) - they make easier dinner conversation than, say, consistent acts of integrity by the CEO - but you can't create a great company culture by stocking a room with beanbags and foosball tables (though that might be a unique expression of the culture at some organizations.)

Actually great practices do tend to coincide with great survey results, but I see that as indicative that both management and employees are putting their all into the organization, and giving more than they need to for the basic employment contract. Practices like a well-developed mentoring program, say, don't usually exist in a vacuum or a culture that doesn't value helping employees grow professionally in the organization. If they do, perhaps they're led by a new OD or HR leader from another organization and may never catch on if they aren't culturally supported.

For the process, we tend to see quite a few organizations with very good survey results, so since 2/3 of the score is by the employees themselves, how management is actively developing the culture through practices does make a difference. But it's more important that management is reaching all employees through multiple communication channels, demonstrating a human touch, communicating in a way that's unique to them as an organization, than that they would simply have a practice (say, open door policy). It's more about the "how" than the "what." (and in a company with bad survey results, that's the most important thing since it's the employees who really know whether it's a great place to work).

I think you raise a really good point about the danger of reading a magazine and trying to cut and paste practices without thinking through whether they are actually right for an organization. Offering pet insurance to employees who are having a hard time paying their own family's insurance (random example) would probably do more damage than good.

Great conversation! - Lindsay

what a great thread, & interesting insight from Lindsay:).

You make a lot of great points, Chris. I think that if you had to pick one quality, for me it would be leadership - an organisation can be an extremely dynamic place to work, but if the leadership changes, it can turn pretty quickly.