Dealing with Negative Glassdoor.com Reviews

With the advent of the Internet and explosion of social media, people now have a plethora of outlets to expound on all aspects of their lives. In some instances, they can do so behind the mask of anonymity. One area of increasing concern to many in the corporate world are websites like Glassdoor.com, which provide job seekers with insights into companies they may be considering for their next jobs.
      These insights are only possible because current and former employees can anonymously post their salaries and commentaries about what it’s like to work there.
      More often than not, those commentaries are negative, even for organizations that do well in “Best Places to Work” type surveys. Because websites like this enable individuals to vent their frustrations and disappointments incognito, it’s not surprising that the site tends to attract more negative commentary than positive.
      After all, on the flip side, people who are happy with their employer and their jobs have little reason to go out of their way to post a review saying so. Contributors to Glassdoor’s reviews are self-selecting in that way and, like online polls, the collective impression they leave cannot be considered a scientific sampling or an accurate reflection of the true internal state of the organization.
      Meanwhile, company leadership is often puzzled and frustrated to read negative commentary that runs contrary their own experiences, especially when they believe they are making the necessary investments in people and work environments to help ensure that theirs is a great place to work.

Considerations
That’s not to say that the criticisms should be ignored or belittled. But there are a number of factors in any given situation to consider before determining the most appropriate response:

• Calendar – Consider all the posts in the context of the calendar. Do the more negative comments occur around the same time? Does that coincide with internal turmoil and change? For instance, was there a leadership shake-up or mass layoff? Were your financials down and, as a result, expected bonuses and raises/promotions not forthcoming? If so, then consider the commentary a temporary anomaly. However, as the internal situation improves, make sure that the negative commentary dies down, too.
• Consistency – Look for consistencies (and inconsistencies) in the commentary. Do the same words and phrases recur? Are any of these words and phrases familiar to you? Have you heard them in office gossip or exit interviews? Do they seem accurate? Or are they just plain false? Nevertheless, if they are untrue and misleading but are repeated on the site, that in itself is noteworthy. Perhaps commenters are merely echoing what’s been said before, but maybe not. Consistency can also mean that something is amiss.
• Location – Weigh commentary from different locations and see whether they differ or are similar. Does one location seem to garner more negativity than all the rest? What’s going on there? Have there been any difficulties related to local management turnover or other local factors?
• Survey – Compare the commentary with what you’ve learned in any recent internal employee surveys, particularly verbatim comments, if your survey invited them. Does the Glassdoor.com commentary align with the commentary gleaned from the surveys? If you find consistency of criticism among the posts similar to the comments found in your survey, then your challenge is clear-cut, and your response should be too.

Refute the Falsehoods
Tempting as it may be, it would be unwise to engage in an online debate with the critics. Sure, you should respond to and refute outright falsehoods on the site, but focus most of your energies on engaging your internal audience directly. Start by making open discussions about these types of criticisms a regular part of leadership’s formal and informal encounters with employees.
      If you’re not doing it already, consider adding monthly or twice-monthly casual lunches or breakfasts with a dozen randomly selected employees with the CEO or other members of the leadership team. Use the opportunities to directly cite the criticisms mentioned on Glassdoor.com and/or employee surveys. Ask about employees’ personal experiences and whether they find the critiques fair.
      You may not get total openness initially, but keep at it. Even if no one in the room confesses to sharing those doubts, the fact that leaders are showing sincerity in asking about these issues will spread quickly and hearten employees who may have doubts about the organization. Meanwhile, your everyday internal communications should directly and indirectly address the issues being raised in the negative commentaries, and in so doing, indicate your awareness of the problems and your desire to do something about them.
      In a similar vein, if your Glassdoor.com reviews show a concentration of negativity at a single location, you’ve gained a new insight you may not have known about. Focus your energies there. Senior leadership needs to get a better understanding of the gaps at the site – whether it’s a matter of poor local management or other factors – and address them directly. It would also be helpful for senior leadership to be more visible at the location in the near term to help bring listening, communications and understanding to bear on the situation.
      If, on the other hand, you find the criticisms inconsistent and often out of left field, it’s probably safe to relax, no matter how negative they may seem. Remember that there are complainers in every crowd and you’ll never make everyone happy. Just be sure to continue monitoring the commentary while, at the same, investing time and energy in engaging your employees consistently, regularly and honestly.
      Lastly, don’t panic. Let’s remember that the purpose of Glassdoor.com is to help prospective employees get a better feel for the company they are considering joining. Most people who include Glassdoor’s services in their job hunt know how to read between the lines of negative commentary.

Amid a Crisis, A Sense of Mission Rises

I’ve long been a devoted reader of daily newspapers in the printed form. My days start with four: The Boston Globe, The Wall Street Journal, The Boston Herald and The New York Times.

                  My deliveryman reliably put all four papers on my front porch every day by 5:00am. For that courtesy, I regularly and gratefully tipped him. He worked for a company that had, over the years, taken on the task of delivering not just those four papers but also Investor’s Business Daily and Barron’s.

                  That routine fell apart late last month when the Globe changed carriers. Beginning the Monday after Christmas, a new delivery person tossed the Globe onto the end of my icy driveway sometime after 8:00am. A second delivery person did likewise with the other three papers a little later. The schedule was spotty in the succeeding days. Sometimes, I would get no papers at all, and some days I would just get them late. But my comfortable routine has vanished.

                  Meanwhile, across the Globe’s primary circulation area of Greater Boston, people howled, some complaining they had not received their newspapers at all in the past week.

                  Yesterday, I started a discussion thread about the subject on my hometown’s Facebook affinity page, which quickly stirred up a hornet’s nest. Most contributors aired their own complaints about late papers or non-deliveries of both the Globe and the other papers. Clearly, the Globe has a problem on its hands, a problem of its own making.

                  One wonders whether the Globe’s operations managers know the old maxim, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” Now they face the monumental task of fixing what they broke. If they don’t, this problem could fester into a death spiral. I’m not being hyperbolic.

                  Let’s remember – as if anyone needs reminding – how the Internet’s alternative news sources and social media stole readers, and the proliferation of sites like Craig’s List pilfered newspapers’ classified advertising revenue sources.

                  Both led to a significant downsizing of the newspaper industry. Dozens of daily papers folded or consolidated with cross-town rivals in the past decade or so. Hundreds of talented reporters and editors have been laid off and forced to change careers.

                  So why would one of those papers, already struggling financially, make matters worse for itself and risk alienating paying subscribers?

                  Yes, it’s after the fact, but in the realm of communication, the Globe blew it. I learned about the impending change through a note from my carrier in early December indicating that he may no longer be delivering my papers after Christmas due to a coming change of carriers.

                  There was no communication from the Globe whatsoever about the impending change, that there might be some disruption of service, that things would be changing. And shame on them for that.

                  On balance, they might have minimized the damage they’ve done to themselves and their institution with more communication – plus, owning up to their gross misjudgment and poor planning, which to date is still lacking.

Now, the positive…

Though I am unfamiliar with the internal culture of the Boston Globe, nevertheless there is clearly a cohesiveness and sense of mission prevalent within the organization. In that regard, I am impressed in two ways.

                  The editorial team did not shrink from or bury the obvious lead story about this fiasco. Its edition yesterday ran a front-page story detailing the poor decisions and the fallout. (Today’s edition includes readers’ stinging letters to the editor, an op-ed column and a follow-up news story.) That same front page yesterday also ran an opinion piece by one of the paper’s columnists who wrote about his experience delivering papers.

                  As it happened, people from across the organization, including reporters, columnists and editors, pitched in and filled the gaps, getting up in the wee hours of Sunday morning to help hand-deliver the fat Sunday edition to the homes of hundreds of subscribers.

                  It hasn’t ended there. One of the active contributors to my Facebook thread is a reporter who lives in my town. She has offered to hand deliver the Globe to any neighbor who didn’t get it, while providing her own insights into the problem and what the paper is doing to alleviate it. It speaks well of the culture that has been cultivated within the newspaper that people who already have full-time jobs there pitched in like that.

                  Early in my career, I was a newspaper reporter in suburban Connecticut. I remember the camaraderie and sense of mission that permeated the newspaper staff. So I suspect this also exists at the Globe. At the same time, they know how to keep their eye on the ball.

                  As Globe columnist Joan Vennochi soberly wrote this morning, “Journalists know how to tell a ‘warm and wonderful,’ like the story of a newspaper family pulling together in time of crisis. But [subscriber] McClure said he cares little about that tale. He just wants his newspaper on a consistent basis.”

                  Just the facts, ma’am. Check.

By the way, if you haven’t seen the film “Spotlight” yet, do. In addition to getting some insights into the Boston Globe news operation, you’ll also see this sense of mission driving its Spotlight team in digging up one of the most important news stories of our time.