Over at BNET this week, I take issue with the annual Fortune list of best places to work, and other such lists. A big problem? These lists are opt-in, meaning only companies that care whether they make such a list will make such a list. Others, which may still be great places to work, may not devote the manpower to filling out surveys. I also think these lists become a bit obsessed with the perks, from free produce to how much time you get off. Though as someone pointed out in a note to me, if it’s such a great place to work, why is it so important that people get so much time away? (Kidding to a degree, I know vacation is important, but still).
Anyway, lists have their place, but a real journalistic public service would be to investigate all kinds of employers, including ones that don’t volunteer to be investigated. And I’d love to see a Worst Places to Work list as well, though it would be hard to sell advertising for such an issue!
The post has gotten a ton of comments, so feel free to weigh in.
I think the big question is: Are the top performers in those list really the best places to work? Maybe the really good place to work just don’t need to go and brag about it.
Also, I don’t think any survey filled by an HR dept will capture the culture inside an organization or the atmosphere, or the qualitative elements that really make a company the best place to work. To me, having 2 or 4 weeks of vacation, what’s important is the time I spend IN the office.
Cheers,