[HN Gopher] My CEO's rating on Glassdoor is so bad that all we a...
___________________________________________________________________
My CEO's rating on Glassdoor is so bad that all we are getting are
shitty hires
Author : caaqil
Score : 125 points
Date : 2022-02-09 18:16 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (old.reddit.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (old.reddit.com)
| gethoht wrote:
| Yeah I worked for a dude like this before. He'd come into the
| office literally in people's faces like screaming at the top of
| his lungs. He did that to me once and I told him to never talk to
| me again. If he needs something he can go through my manager.
|
| 6 months later the board decided he was too much of a liability
| and he resigned. He also had several sexual harassment lawsuits
| against him.
| skeeter2020 wrote:
| I'm pretty easy-going but also a 6'5" well-off white male, so
| I'd have no problem dealing with this sort of behaviour
| (emotional and/or physical) right before I found the door. I
| feel really bad with how a woman, minority or someone who
| really needed the pay cheque would have to deal with this.
| strikelaserclaw wrote:
| what does your stature have to do with anything? This is an
| office settings, all bullying is done verbally, so dealing
| with this kind of behavior is more about "guts" than physical
| strength.
| serverlessmom wrote:
| Wow this is horrifying. It's time to abandon the ship and take
| your very valuable skills someplace they will be appreciated. In
| my experience with people like the CEO described here they are
| usually people whom are unable to engage in self reflection, but
| somehow delivering that rating to the CEO to see how miserable
| his rating is may be a much needed wake up call.
| Animats wrote:
| The primary job of the Board of Directors is to fire the CEO when
| necessary.
|
| Looks like it's time.
| ipaddr wrote:
| The primary job is to stay on the board and leverage
| relationships and reputation for their own brand.
| klyrs wrote:
| Maybe, but this CEO is going to be a stain on their
| reputation.
| Demiurge wrote:
| I worked at a company with a comically terrible (criminal) CEO.
| The year I quit, the company Glassdoor rating went from average
| to bad due to multiple reviews. Half a year later, after more
| people quit, I see lots of fake reviews, the worst (accurate)
| reviews gone, and the rating is back to decent. Apparently, even
| seemingly good things can be subverted.
| beepbooptheory wrote:
| A wonderful new angle to try for possibly getting some responses
| in the job search!
| aynsof wrote:
| I'm stunned at the board's complete lack of awareness.
|
| I would have hoped that any competent board member would want to
| view metrics around retention and morale, and that large shifts
| would be something they'd dig into.
| amriksohata wrote:
| Brit here, slightly different topic, but related. American
| corporate culture scares the crap out of me, I never fully
| understood why there is such a presenteeism culture. I mean it
| exists here and in Europe but not to the same extent and where
| people are just numbers that are hired and fired so easily
| without workers rights.
| vidarh wrote:
| Norwegian in London here. This is how the UK looks to me
| compared to Norway...
| JoeAltmaier wrote:
| That's definitely a cultural thing, and in the US it's
| generational as well. 50 years ago folks expected to work for a
| lifetime at the same company, and moving jobs was considered a
| big red flag.
|
| But today? It's more like a gig economy, where you work at a
| place long enough to finish a project, then reevaluate. As my
| buddy Bob says, each year his annual review/raise is an 'offer
| to stay'. He compares it with what he could get elsewhere, and
| moves if that's the right decision.
| digisign wrote:
| This kind of company can't survive long, and aren't very common
| fortunately. Lots of open positions as well, so no reason to
| stay either. Mobility is generally a good thing.
| felizuno wrote:
| While I agree with the advice to leave, this person may be
| reluctant to leave because their compensation package is not
| fully vested. There is a famously toxic culture at - uh, you
| know, a large internet retailer with a prominent web services
| business - whose primary compensation is/was stock on 2-4 year
| vesting schedules. I personally know people who had literal heart
| attacks, mental breakdowns, and other serious and life
| threatening health consequences that arose as a direct result of
| staying in that toxic environment too long.
|
| It's not worth it. My friend who had a heart attack at 40 would
| gladly trade back the $750k in stock he got in exchange. Life is
| short.
| snorkel wrote:
| Whole situation sounds like typical startup growing pains and
| this is the OPs first rodeo of this kind. The original crew of
| developers was happy during the early days when it was all cozy
| and limitless upside, but now there's new funding, new bosses,
| new managers, new processes, new rules, new coworkers that "don't
| get it" and that old fun and cozy vibe is lost. The new CEO will
| likely be fired by the board too, but face it, the cozy days are
| over. So either find yourself a role in that circus that you
| like, or quit.
| kodah wrote:
| I've worked at a number of startups and the CEOs, beyond
| founders, have been great. None of what is in this post sounds
| normal.
| manuelabeledo wrote:
| This is not it.
|
| Having worked at some startups before, there's a difference
| between folks slowly getting off the boat because "party time
| is over", and the chaos described by OP.
|
| In the former situation, these people are usually easily
| replaceable because they weren't committed to start with. I
| have probably seen over a dozen engineers leaving over the
| course of a year when more money required better processes and
| more accountability, and to be frank, nothing really happened.
|
| In the latter though, the high performing, highly committed
| engineers leave in droves, and create a sort of expertise
| vacuum that is hard to fill just with new hires.
| soneca wrote:
| I see nothing typical in a terrible CEO that causes such
| turnover among all the company. Growing pains are communication
| issues, less transparency, confusing career path, bad
| onboarding, etc. This is not that.
| burkaman wrote:
| This is absolutely not normal. If you find yourself relating to
| this post, please start looking for a new job immediately, I
| promise it's not like this everywhere.
| bduerst wrote:
| Yeah, this feels like a no-true-scotsman, except for
| 'startups', made to discredit OP's reality.
|
| Telling OP to ignore the writing on the wall and show loyalty
| to a toxic leader is not good advice.
| gruez wrote:
| >This is absolutely not normal.
|
| Is it "normal" for a company to stay "cozy and limitless
| upside" even as it grows to hundreds of employees?
|
| >If you find yourself relating to this post, please start
| looking for a new job immediately
|
| The parent post literally mentions quitting as one option.
| burkaman wrote:
| > Is it "normal" for a company to stay "cozy and limitless
| upside" even as it grows to hundreds of employees?
|
| No it isn't, but that's not relevant to this discussion.
| Nobody made any claim of limitless upside.
|
| > The parent post literally mentions quitting as one
| option.
|
| Yes, but it implied you're likely to find the same thing
| anywhere that's not a super early stage startup, which is
| not true.
| bell-cot wrote:
| GTFOASAP
| Traster wrote:
| It's easy to overcomplicate this. Why work for someone who is an
| arsehole? Leave! Why are you worrying about good people not
| applying because of your bad glass door ratings? Do you actually
| want good peopel to be exposed to your arsehole CEO? Will they
| make a difference? No.
|
| Either you make the judgement you can outlast the CEO, or you
| should be thinking of your career outside of the company.
| Cullinet wrote:
| I think, as a observer, one of the best character traits of
| American culture is the willingness to topple your leaders. We
| don't often suffer 16 years of a Prime Minister but did 14 of
| Thatcher and 12 of Blair. Whereas becoming a Two Term President
| is still a big deal.
|
| Unfortunately employment market culture of really far more
| rapidly changing careers than the foundations of the American
| industrial economy was used to, hasn't gotten updated on the
| leadership durability model. Which has been grossly extended by
| special voting rights and the abandonment of embarrassment for
| misdemeanour leading to resignation which is almost gone as
| well as the possible reason why metoo etc was so explosive when
| we realised that some unacceptable behaviour really is
| unacceptable.
|
| There's more than merely the benefit of the doubt happening
| here.
| robotnikman wrote:
| Reminds me of the CEO of my last company _shudders_
|
| I still had nightmares many months after I left that place.
| aerovistae wrote:
| This brings to mind something interesting to me.
|
| I have had 5 jobs in software in the past 10 years, and the first
| four were frustrating in different ways. Frustrating coworkers,
| bad pay, annoying location, dismal office, no vacation -- all
| different combinations of problems.
|
| My current job, however, at a reasonably well known non-FAANG
| tech company, is in most ways perfect. I work remotely but have a
| NYC salary. My coworkers are delightful. The work is stress-free
| with top-of-the-line work-life balance, flexible PTO and a lot of
| holidays. I have no complaints.
|
| EXCEPT that it's insanely boring. It's just such meaningless,
| boring work.
|
| And that's the quandary. I know how stressful and frustrating
| most jobs are. I know this job is 90% perfect other than leaving
| me feeling unfulfilled. I know the odds of finding another job
| with such a combination of factors is very low.
|
| So I stay, even as I see talented engineers moving on as
| described in the reddit thread and in this one. I'm not staying
| because I can't get work elsewhere - I'm staying because I don't
| believe I can find comparably stress-free high-paying work
| elsewhere.
| lordnacho wrote:
| Start a side hustle to scratch your itch? Assuming you mean
| unfulfilled in a technical sense. Of course you could also mean
| family and friends, which is outside of work anyway.
| xtracto wrote:
| After having been in 3 very fast growing startups I got
| completely burnt out. So I got a job like the one you are
| describing: The pay is basically double of what I was making
| before, it is absolutely out of all proportion for my home
| country and the team is amazing. However it is also quite
| boring as well, I've never been in a "largish" slow phase
| company. I am enjoying the ride because once this is over, I
| _know_ I won 't be able to get a similar job elsewhere.
| JoeAltmaier wrote:
| Sounds like a company I know. We placed one of our Engineer
| contractors there - all was well. Then he joined the company
| (perfectly agreeable all around) and instantly started getting
| shit on by their CEO. Public criticism of everthing he did;
| outrageous demands on their time; exclusion from company events
| for fake emergencies; announcements that his department
| (consisting of exactly one person, him) was under-performing the
| other department (12 people) at company meetings.
|
| So he quit; they panicked; he's now a contractor again with
| double the pay and reporting to a VP he got along with.
| Cullinet wrote:
| That particular lousy "leader" bought your company and thought
| that the performance of your contract engineer all alone in his
| company could carry on at the level possible with your
| company's obviously highly effective employees and engineering
| engagement environmental support systems.
|
| At least that explains him being isolated..
|
| .. which actually foreshadows the conclusion of this story and
| even begs for more...
|
| the engineer was employed with expectations of being able to
| perform like a entire department
|
| obviously the CEO didn't grok his valuation mistake
|
| and that's why after being a unacceptable ahold for a very
| actionable sounding amount of really lousy leadership level
| loosing litigation liability lingering low blows, the CEO was
| prepared to re-hire at double rate
|
| the CEO clearly still believes that the whole department
| performance deal is possible and merely adjusted his salary and
| expenses expectations by the minimum I expect he was prepared
| to pay.
|
| I don't think that the fundamental performance potential for
| this person and that position is actually unfortunately
| possible.
|
| only positive possibility I can think of is using the CEOs
| presumption to hire a sufficient staff to do the work and end
| up VP/SVP report to the board up from contract engineer in one
| job half life. I've seen the similar kind of thing done. I
| presume your former colleague can hire your company back to buy
| some thinking time as well. If this is a current situation I
| hope this is some food for thought.
| JoeAltmaier wrote:
| Not sure where all that came from. They simply hired the
| contract Engineer we were providing. We originally did all
| their software on the particular product (cockpit display)
| using four Engineers but when development slowed, they wanted
| one fulltime and that was our guy. He went from being our
| employee to being their employee, which is his right. And it
| spiralled from there.
|
| Anyway he's happy independently contracting now, so alls well
| that ends well.
| [deleted]
| zibzab wrote:
| Why are you still there, with the job market being what it is
| now?
|
| I mean, you fairly quickly see where this is going to lead. Why
| stay in a sinking ship?
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| Some folks need some encouraging. Encourage them!
| faeyanpiraat wrote:
| The "dead sea effect" is an interesting new concept I learned
| from that post.
| ubermonkey wrote:
| Yeah, me too. I worked at a place in the 90s that was
| absolutely going in that direction, but I had no word for the
| phenomenon.
|
| They were an all Vax/VMS shop in the mid-90s, and they paid
| developers criminally low wages even for the era. I was hired
| in an analyst/project management role at a considerably higher
| salary, which of course made my group unpopular with the dev
| rank and file.
|
| Turnover was insane -- like, 40% a year in the dev & IT
| department. Those that stayed were, generally speaking, those
| that either couldn't conceive of seeking another job, or were
| unable to do so. This is not a recipe for a functional or high-
| achieving group even without that by-that-point religious
| adherence to the party line on (a) the long-term viability of
| VMS and Digital generally or (b) the wisdom of insisting that
| damn near everything be built from scratch, even the database
| system.
| WrtCdEvrydy wrote:
| > the wisdom of insisting that damn near everything be built
| from scratch, even the database system.
|
| NIH is literally software cancer. We've done it dozens of
| times and it hasn't worked once...
| AtlasBarfed wrote:
| It's what I think Amazon/AWS is going through now. When they
| were in "fun growth" mode their obnoxious Bezosisms didn't
| really matter, but they are settling into an
| enterprise/utility/long term company. Their raising the bar and
| stack ranking and forced attrition and blame culture and
| backstabbing and sacrificial hires won't work.
|
| Instead, they produce a dead sea effect where you aren't
| getting good people, you're either getting sociopaths or people
| that don't have options to go elsewhere and not be
| organizationally abused.
|
| Because if you're good, you can go elsewhere. Other FAANG, etc.
|
| Did you see all the outages in AWS in December? Utilities have
| long-standing employees because they do long-term support and
| know the systems. Amazon's hiring does not reward or structure
| itself that way. It's for churning people.
|
| If you get a creepy impression from the hiring (and Amazon
| hiring should DEFINITELY do that)... well...
|
| I would say most people that go there are doing it for the
| resume and they are out within two years. The people I knew who
| went there were exactly that. Then they cashed out to better
| jobs.
| manuelabeledo wrote:
| > The company's solution was to mass hire to make up for the
| losses.
|
| Yeah, this company is in life support, then.
|
| There is this other company where there are a handful of the
| shittiest managers I have ever heard of in my whole career. As a
| result, most key engineers are leaving, and the company is
| ramping up hires.
|
| They don't seem to understand that it doesn't matter how many
| more people you hire, if all the know-how and leadership has
| vanished already.
| exdsq wrote:
| > if all the know-how and leadership has vanished already.
|
| The final nail in the coffin after this happening is a software
| rewrite by the bad quality hired because A) maintaining and
| extending software is hard 2) it's even harder without any
| original engineers around to guide designs 3) it's easy to
| blame people who aren't there for your issues so "the existing
| software sucks".
|
| I've seen this happen a few times.
| [deleted]
| gameswithgo wrote:
| How hard is it for an employee to request a meeting with the
| board, generally?
| axg11 wrote:
| Very difficult, and frankly pointless. I have seen employees
| take problems to the board in the past _if_ they already have a
| working relationship with board members. Otherwise, you are
| signalling yourself as an employee that cannot successfully
| work with the company's management. At best, the board will
| take actions based on your advice, but you will still
| compromise your own position within the company.
|
| The calculus is simple: in many startups the CEO owns 10-60% of
| the company. A very senior early employee who negotiated well
| on options/equity? Optimally <0.5%.
| [deleted]
| nrmitchi wrote:
| You'd really have to have _a lot_ to lose (in comparison to
| just taking a new job) under the current company in order to
| take that chance (think a large value of options, etc).
|
| You'd have better luck if you already had some sort of existing
| relationship with the board, but that doesn't really apply if
| you're asking this question.
| flybrand wrote:
| The board will say "yes" in their response cc'ing the
| leadership.
| ipnon wrote:
| You do not want to stand out at these companies. From
| experience, you will get fired. Morale is at rock bottom, no
| one is working hard, the only benefit is that expectations are
| near the limit of nothing so long as you do even the most
| miniscule actions of value.
|
| Working at Hell Corporation with CEO Satan is incredibly
| depressing. The reason people don't leave is that interviewers
| can smell the desperation and downtroddenness. This is coupled
| with not having written anything except muddy meatballs on top
| of spaghetti code for your tenure.
|
| Evil CEOs are a feature in these companies. They crush the
| souls of their workers to prevent them from being able to
| leave. It usually works long enough for the founders to sell
| their stakes to a witless VC before the whole operation
| explodes in a ball of fire.
| bagels wrote:
| If you are on your way out already, the calculus changes a
| little.
| paxys wrote:
| Getting fired (with a severance package/unemployment
| benefits) may be preferable to voluntarily quitting out of
| frustration and getting nothing.
| onphonenow wrote:
| Why? You take a lot of personal risk when you do end runs to a
| board for this type of thing.
|
| The normal solution is to go out and get a new job -> I've done
| that with crazy bosses. Very simple. You can even leave on OK
| terms.
| trentnix wrote:
| My first thought reading this is that I'm happy Glassdoor is
| actually having an impact.
|
| 15 months ago I started work as a Software Manager at a large
| arts and crafts retailer. Much of the job seemed completely in
| line with my interest and what I wanted to do, but two weeks in I
| figured out the place was clownishly toxic and the CTO, despite
| an impressive educational background, had a cartoonish
| understanding of how software is made. So I resigned and sought
| new opportunities. I've never worked less than 18 months at any
| job, and that made leaving a tough pill to swallow.
|
| Looking at the reviews on Glassdoor (and TeamBlind) left since my
| departure, I can see my intuitions were spot on. Reviewers'
| descriptions of the environment seem absurd, but unfortunately
| they are completely consistent with what my spider-sense was
| telling me. I hope Glassdoor has helped others avoid the misery
| of employment there.
| Cullinet wrote:
| I gather that you didn't look at your employers Glassdoor
| reviews until after you left?
|
| I'm really confused about your apparent conflict with having
| quit a toxic employer. Remaining only enables the a##holds to
| survive by pointing at nice guys like you. So being conflicted
| about leaving is likely down to the similar kind of human
| collective survival instinct kicking in that kept the 3rd Reich
| functioning until the organisational Medusa was finally
| beheaded.
|
| Surveys like Glassdoor probably (in my hand wavy land of
| concrete civic ethical computability probably proven, but it
| does seem necessary to appeal to more than one kind of human
| evaluation to break chains like these) only contribute to the
| problem by giving antisocial and anethical CEOs sources for
| deriving operating limits that I suspect wouldn't work if more
| good folk such as yourself heeded Glassdoor information prior
| to accepting employment instead of maintaining a impossible to
| calibrate open book according to our individual experiences,
| which we then go right ahead and discount for being outliers
| based on our total presumptuous imagination that the obscenity
| of a organisation we're suffering from is actually quite good
| and normal because obviously we started giving the boss a
| neutral score because that's what fair unbiased scientific folk
| do.
|
| That's exactly what fair unbiased scientific folk do also with
| great results, only every other situation where we apply our
| fair logic we're using wildly capable arrays of the most
| sophisticated linearized SI / ANSI calibrated measuring
| equipment that leverage chains of custody for reference and
| operating systems maximising the cumulative learning of mankind
| and human ability to reject misleading but tempting fallacies
| for fair fact.
| trentnix wrote:
| _> I 'm really confused about your apparent conflict with
| having quit a toxic employer._
|
| After only two weeks (and having never experienced such a
| thing before), it seems pretty natural to second guess one's
| intuition.
| georgeecollins wrote:
| I feel like savvy companies can game Glassdoor. Like reviews
| online, it may be useful to learn what to look for but not so
| useful as an overall raring.
| monksy wrote:
| Oh they do. I worked for a place that decided to start doing
| quarterly layoffs.
|
| Their approval raiting for the ceo was 80%, recommend to a
| friend in the 60%s.
|
| The reviews were vague but still pointed out staginating
| business and one even mentioned that the ceo was like a drunk
| pilot.
| cookie_monsta wrote:
| They don't even have to be that savvy. I worked for a company
| that got bought out and the new owners were terrible. The CEO
| was a friend of the owner, had no experience in the sector at
| all so he brought in consultants to tell us everything that
| was wrong with this profitable enterprise, the redundancies
| and cost-cutting started and people who had been there for
| years started jumping before they were pushed or just
| literally stopped working altogether and waited for their
| redundancy offer. The company started losing money, more cost
| cutting, that spiral.
|
| The Glassdoor reviews reflected all of this - generally
| positive until change of ownership, then a steep downhill.
| This was a while ago and I don't think the new management
| were even aware of Glassdoor to start off with, but somebody
| must have showed them because all of a sudden as soon as
| somebody posted what sounded like a very genuine negative
| review there would be a corresponding one that was just so
| glowing they were comical.
|
| This was around the time of the Trip Advisor scandal, after
| which they quietly dropped the "reviews you can trust"
| slogan. The two things have stuck in my mind together ever
| since.
| rchaud wrote:
| Glassdoor is like Yelp, bad reviews can be scrubbed for a
| price. Companies like these may have a noble mission at the
| start, but housing people's reviews isnt' profitable. Acting
| as a PR firm however, is.
| vorpalhex wrote:
| Feels like it wouldn't be too hard to make a simple review
| site on IPFS. Have a client based filter for spam - but
| then the filter can be confirmed by every client by
| visiting the blacklisted reviews.
|
| Honestly might be a fun weekend project...
| dwaltrip wrote:
| What happens when fake reviews come pouring in?
| eunos wrote:
| Idea : Offer enterprise package for companies to scrub bad
| review, but also offer premium account to see unscrubbed
| reviews. Win-win.
| dkarl wrote:
| The way you pitch it makes it sound reassuringly
| unrealistic, but it's easy to say the same thing in a
| more palatable way. How about this: Users can see the
| first page of a company's reviews for free, or pay for a
| premium account with full access. Companies can pay for
| access to select the "highlighted" reviews that appear on
| the first page.
| f68yuvibhjk wrote:
| Throw away account for obvious reasons:
|
| Someone made a claim in a review that I, or someone on my
| team (it was unclear which from the review), tried to cover
| up a sexual assault [and some other claims that we were
| nasty people in general]. Investigative lawyers were hired
| in relation to the sexual assault cover up claim, and they
| spent the next few months trying to get to the bottom of
| what might have happened. In the end, nothing could be
| found. No person came forward, the lawyers investigated
| with current and past team members, it was exhausting and
| painful. A lot of time and money was spent, but we didn't
| get any sign that the claim was in fact true. The company
| asked for people to come forward with more information,
| nothing happened. Further, the original poster from
| Glassdoor could not be reached, it was a dead end.
|
| At the end of the day, the post survived. The company tried
| to get it removed yet Glassdoor wanted no part in censoring
| the claim, despite it being backed by zero evidence. It
| hurt me, it was difficult to manage with my relationship,
| my team members...it still upsets me today. I am torn
| between thinking maybe there was something that happened I
| didn't know about, and that this is just an angry person
| trying to cause trouble. I'll possibly never know, but it
| continues to upset me even now as I write this.
|
| I just went back now and checked, the post has been
| modified to remove this claim. I know it was there for
| about 12 months.
|
| So yeah, based on this, I don't know Glassdoor offers the
| flexibility some imply it does. I don't know what resulted
| in it finally changing, but the damage is done in my
| opinion.
| mrtksn wrote:
| I think this comment is a brilliant exposition on how
| anonymity can be good and bad.
|
| I guess you want leave these things behind and don't make
| them public, you post an anonymous comment. The worst
| thing that could have happened is that you are
| astroturfing for Glassdoor but it's harmless and the
| sincere tone makes me think that you are not
| astroturfing.
|
| On the the other hand we also have people who will lie,
| pretend to be multiple people, cause trouble with no
| repercussion to their characters.
|
| I have this idea of censorship free web where you have
| your identity stored but not disclosed. So the content
| moderators can choose to delete your comments but you can
| un-delete those if you accept revealing your identity.
|
| So in your situation, you should be able to tell
| Glassdoor, here is our investigation and we couldn't find
| anything to indicate that the claims are true therefore
| please remove this comment. Glassdoor removes the comment
| and if the poster of the comment is still behind the
| claims, clicks a button and the comment is restored but
| this time with the identity exposed.
|
| This way, you can have anonymous comments that can be
| challenged and the commentators have a mechanism to
| counter censorship as they have the power to override
| censorship if they are willing to stake their persona.
| rurp wrote:
| You don't even need to be savvy. I worked for a company that
| turned out to be really scummy in a number of ways. To combat
| the terrible ratings on Glassdoor they implemented the most
| obvious fake review process possible where every week two
| employees would have to create an account and write a
| positive review. Of course the reviews people wrote were
| obvious fakes, just a line of two of meaningless platitudes.
| They were posted on a consistent schedule for months while
| pretty much every review of substance was terrible.
|
| After leaving I flagged the fake reviews and reported them to
| Glassdoor. Glassdoor did absolutely nothing. I tried
| reporting them again a few months later and again got
| nowhere. Last I checked the company's page was still full of
| blatant fake 5 star reviews.
| BFLpL0QNek wrote:
| My ex company had a single review for 12 months. The review
| wasn't a good one for the company but I didn't disagree with
| anything in the review.
|
| My company went through a big hiring spree during the
| pandemic. They found out about the review from candidate
| feedback and it was supposedly having a negative effect
| hiring. Still that single negative interview remained.
|
| Then more negative reviews appeared a few months on from new
| hires who where treated badly and let go or left.
|
| All off a sudden with a handful of extremely one star
| negative reviews which I would say are true, factual and
| reflect the company correctly, the negative reviews
| disappeared and a stream of five star positive reviews
| appeared specifically debunking each previous negative point
| from previous reviews with a positive spin.
|
| I know the company and CEO, the CEO is a text book
| psychopath. It was fairly obvious he'd written the reviews
| and somehow got the negative reviews taken down. If it was by
| contacting Glassdoor or sending threats and lawyer letters to
| the recent staff who left I don't know but either wouldn't
| surprise me.
|
| Any company on Glassdoor with endless positive reviews I'd
| treat as suspicious. The useful reviews are the informative
| negative reviews.
| xtracto wrote:
| Ha reminds me of a previous company I worked at. The amount of
| exec and employee turnover was horrible. Yet the CEO and company
| have good ratings on Glassdoor. And the CEO sincerely believes
| that such turnover is a feature.
| skeeter2020 wrote:
| A very large inernational engineering company hires lots of new
| grads, one of them a former co-worker of mine who described how
| her boss told her "You're like an orange; we'll squeeze all the
| juice out of you until there's nothing left but pulp and peel,
| then you'll quit or we'll throw you away". I guess this could
| also describe most law firms and management consultancies as
| well. Is it better or worse when it's systemic and not just an
| a-hole CEO?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-02-09 23:02 UTC)