Category Archives: corporate culture

Women’s Disparity, Dearth in STEM

When I was 10 years old, my father put a microscope/chemistry set under our Christmas tree — not for either of my studious siblings, 538088903-women-in-sciencebut for me, the nutty little gymnastic tumbler who rarely stopped long enough to observe much of anything, let alone how the world worked.

Years later, when I asked him about it, he told me he put that there because he sensed in me the inquisitiveness and intuition of a future scientist, like he had become and his father before him.

I never lived up to his hunch, though I did love math, and I certainly chose an inquisitive career. But I’ve often wondered what stopped me. Was there something in me or my environment that never allowed that chemistry set to become more of a beacon than a toy?

A new study from the University of Washington, Why Are Some STEM Fields More Gender Balanced Than Others? suggests there well may have been, a force that persists to this day, and one that could account for the varied representation — as well as the under-representation — of women in science, technology, engineering and mathematics careers.

According to the study’s report, the most powerful factor driving this disparity and dearth is a “masculine culture” that makes many women feel like they don’t belong.

Granted, the masculine force in my case was completely encouraging, but was it the rest of my world around me — the lack of female role models in scientific jobs, the other stuff I was given to play with, the general expectations of what drives women onward and our perceptions of the fields that seem so out of reach?

Lead researcher and author Sapna Cheryan, a UW associate professor of psychology, says maybe so — maybe all that and more:

“Students are basing their educational decisions in large part on their perceptions of a field. And not having early experience with what a field is really like makes it more likely that they will rely on their stereotypes about that field and who is good at it.”

She and her fellow researchers analyzed more than 1,200 papers about women’s under-representation in STEM fields and, from those, identified 10 factors that impact gender differences in students’ interest and participation in STEM. Then they winnowed the list down to the three factors most likely to explain gendered patterns in the STEM fields — a lack of pre-college experience, gender gaps in belief about one’s abilities and that most powerful one, that masculine culture that discourages women from participating.

Cheryan isn’t the only one taking the declining, diverging number of women in STEM careers seriously. On Thursday, Accenture and Girls Who Code released their joint research finding that the share of U.S. women in technology jobs will decline from 24 percent to 22 percent by 2025 — “a new low over the next 10 years, despite so much focus recently on closing the gender gap in tech,” says Accenture’s report. In the same token, it states:

“[I]nterventions to encourage girls to pursue a computer-science education could triple the number of women in computing to 3.9 million, growing their share of technology jobs from 24 percent today to 39 percent in the same time frame.”

I’ll never forget my interview a few years back with Colleen Blake, one of our 2013 HR’s Rising Stars.  At the time, she was the senior director of global people operations for San Jose, Calif.-based Brocade Communication Systems Inc.

A busy mom, but with a rich past in information technology and science, she was also passionate about encouraging women in STEM careers. Her company, in fact, realizing its own deficits in that area, asked her to be its liaison and mentor for women pursuing those fields.

As she recalls, Brocade leaders “had approached me when I returned to work [after her daughter’s birth] and said, ‘Colleen, we have this problem encouraging women in this field.’ To be tapped on the shoulder like that felt like a real sign for me, that I was meant to do this — not just for me, but for my daughter as well.”

It does kind of baffle the mind that, with so much attention to the problem and with crusaders like Blake, we’re getting worse, not better. What this means for you, I can’t pretend to know, though creating better support systems for women in tech does come to mind. Perhaps it’s best to leave you with two cogent quotes from the Accenture release. The first, from Reshma Saujani, founder and CEO of Girls Who Code:

“Despite unprecedented attention and momentum behind the push for universal computer-science education, the gender gap in computing is getting worse. The message is clear: A one-size-fits-all model won’t work. This report is a rallying cry to invest in programs and curricula designed specifically for girls. We need a new mind-set and willingness to prioritize and focus on our nation’s girls, and we need it now.”

And this, from Julie Sweet, Accenture’s group chief executive for North America:

“Dramatically increasing the number of women in computing is critical to closing the computer-science skills gap facing every business in today’s digital economy. Without action, we risk leaving a large portion of our country’s talent on the sidelines of the high-value computing jobs that are key to U.S. innovation and competitiveness.”

Couldn’t agree more.

Tweet This!

Zenefits: Unicorn Comeback?

Remember Zenefits — the cloud-based benefits-administration startup that was going to revolutionize the industry by providing a benefits platform to small and mid-sized businesses and which was valued at $4 billion just two years after it was founded? The high-flying unicorn plummeted back to earth amid revelations that Zenefits’ co-founder and CEO, Parker Conrad, led an effort to help the company’s sales reps skip over state insurance-licensing requirements so they could start selling as soon as possible. More fuel was added to the bonfire when details started emerging about Zenefits’ rowdy office culture, in which managers had to send out a memo specifically banning employees from having sex in the building’s stairwells. The company parted ways with Conrad, laid off hundreds of employees, and cut its valuation in half in order to avoid a lawsuit by investors.

Now the company is struggling to regain its once-lofty perch, but its got robust new rivals to contend with. In today’s New York Timestechnology columnist Farhad Manjoo interviews Zenefits’ current CEO, David Sacks, about its soon-to-be-released software redesign, the internal reforms he undertook to fix the company’s culture and its new branding campaign, which include billboards throughout Silicon Valley that ask: “What is Z2?” In the wake of Conrad’s resignation, Manjoo writes, Sacks worked hard to rebuild Zenefits’ reputation by being open and honest about previous wrongdoings, describing his strategy as “admit, fix, settle and repeat.”

But Zenefits’ path to redemption faces roadblocks in the form of  new, well-funded competitors such as Gusto, which has 40,000 paying customers and was recently valued at $1 billion, Manjoo writes. Gusto has a much different corporate culture than did the earlier incarnation of Zenefits, where the philosophy had been “ready, fire, aim”: Gusto is taking a slower, more deliberate approach to building its business under the leadership of its CEO, Joshua Reeves. Its offices “has the air of a meditative retreat,” Manjoo writes, with plants, couches and a ban on wearing shoes “to make it feel more like home than work.”

Yet regardless of whether Zenefits or Gusto ultimately prevails, this heated competition for the SMB market probably means the ultimate winners will be the small to mid-sized companies that had previously been unable to afford the sort of benefits-administration software that large companies have long enjoyed. Despite the sordid behavior that marked its rise, Zenefits’ early founders at least deserve props for being one of the first to use the cloud to help this long-underserved market.


Tweet This!

Being a Black Professional Woman

I’m probably wrong going into this: posting something about what it’s like to be a black woman in corporate America when I’m white.

523400310-black-professional-womanI probably don’t get extra points for being a member of a mixed-race family
either. In today’s
hypersensitive, hyper-volatile,
racially divisive
environment, I tend to shy away from my biracial nephew’s political Facebook posts and stick to our shared summer-vacation pictures, and our beautifully diverse family updates. What right have I to even “Like” something I can’t possibly know?

But I decided to post this release anyway, about a documentary airing this coming Wednesday in Oakland, Calif., Head Not The Tail Productions’ Invisible Women: Being a Black Woman in Corporate America. Not because I’m vying for any points, but because what happens to black women in or pursuing corporate careers should be something we all take seriously. And dealing with it should be all our jobs as well.

The disappointment, discrimination and rejection described by the many women in the documentary (the link above includes another link to a short teaser trailer worth watching) is often subtle, say diversity experts, as is corporate unconscious bias, which we’ve reported on on our website and here on HRE Daily.

“In conducting the research, we found the corporate practice of discrimination to be a common harsh reality faced by countless women of color,” says Melody Shere’a, HNTT Productions’ founder and CEO, and director of the film. As her release states,

“The playing field isn’t level and well-qualified black women are too frequently denied the opportunity to explore similar career-growth opportunities as their white and other female counterparts. The facts and details you will learn from this documentary will surprise you.”

Granted, most of you are nowhere near Oakland, Calif., but I imagine a call to Shere’a at the number provided in her release would prove fruitful in getting your hands on the film. It’s worth a try. You can’t improve diversity in your corporate culture if you don’t fully understand all forms of discrimination and how they’re being perceived by those on the receiving end.

For that reason, I encourage you to give this a read as well, a professional black woman’s response to a white friend of hers asking for a better understanding of white privilege. Like the documentary, this piece by Lori Lakin Hutcherson, founder and editor-in-chief of Good Black News, centers on the subtleties she has had to contend with throughout her career — including her education at Harvard University. As she details for her friend:

“When I got accepted to Harvard — as a fellow AP student, you were witness to what an academic beast I was in high school, yes? — three separate times I encountered white strangers as I prepped for my maiden trip to Cambridge that rankle to this day.

The first was the white doctor giving me a physical … .:

Me: ‘I need to send an immunization report to my college so I can matriculate.’

Doctor: ‘Where are you going?’

Me: ‘Harvard.’

Doctor: ‘You mean the one in Massachusetts?’

The second was in a store, looking for supplies I needed from Harvard’s suggested ‘what to bring with you’ list:

Store employee: ‘Where are you going?’

Me: ‘Harvard.’

Store employee: ‘You mean the one in Massachusetts?’

The third was at UPS, shipping off boxes of said ‘what to bring’ to Harvard. I was in line behind a white boy mailing boxes to Princeton and in front of a white woman sending her child’s boxes to wherever:

Woman, to the boy: ‘What college are you going to?’

Boy: ‘Princeton.’

Woman: ‘Congratulations!’

Woman, to me: ‘Where are you sending your boxes?’

Me: ‘Harvard.’

Woman: ‘You mean the one in Massachusetts?’

I think: ‘No … the one downtown next to the liquor store.’ …

The point here is, if no one has ever questioned your intellectual capabilities or attendance at an elite institution based solely on your skin color, this is white privilege [or bias, as some might say].”

A later example comes from Hutcherson’s work as a film and television writer/producer:

“While writing on a television show in my 30s, my new white male boss — who had only known me for a few days — had, unbeknownst to me, told another writer on staff he thought I was conceited, didn’t know as much as I thought I did, and didn’t have the talent I thought I had.  And what exactly had happened in those few days?  I disagreed with a pitch where he suggested our lead female character carelessly leave a pot holder on the stove and burn down her apartment. This character being a professional caterer.

“When what he said about me was revealed months later — by then he’d come to respect and rely on me — he apologized for prejudging me because I was black and female. I told him — not unkindly, but with a head shake and a smile — that he was ignorant for doing so and clearly had a lot to learn. It was a good talk because he was remorseful and open. [The subhead of her piece, by the way, is “Nobody is mad at you for being white.”]

“But the point here is, if you’ve never been on the receiving end of a boss’ prejudiced, uninformed ‘how dare she question my ideas’ badmouthing based solely on his ego and your race, you have white privilege.”

If ever there was a compelling treatise on what goes on between the races inside our buildings of business as opposed to the far-more-combustible streets below, especially over the past year, this is it.

Hutcherson’s last example, especially, should give us all pause: Perhaps the only way to shore up the divides, even at their most subtle, is to start — whether we’re the CEO, the head of HR or a direct supervisor — by admitting that certain behaviors or patterns of communication that are allowed to exist in business today are just wrong. Then start the conversation.

And then the training, if necessary.

Tweet This!

Engaging the Talent of Tomorrow

ThinkstockPhotos-494940180Diane Gherson, CHRO at IBM Corp., laughs when she recalls the role technology played in improving the employee experience when she first joined the Armonk, N.Y.-based technology giant 14 years ago.

At that time, she says, managers received emails notifying them when team members’ birthdays were coming up, for example.

“And that was really exciting,” Gherson told the audience at this morning’s opening session at the HR Technology Conference at Chicago’s McCormick Place.

Now, she says, managers receive frequent messages with much more information on their employees. For instance, managers get notes telling them that a given employee hasn’t received recognition for his or her role in, say, a special project.

Gherson’s example was just one illustration of how technology has changed the way managers and employees do their jobs at IBM. As part of this morning’s “Engaging and Retaining the Talent of Tomorrow” panel discussion, moderated by Emmy and Peabody Award-winning journalist and Starfish Media Group CEO Soledad O’Brien, Gherson was one of four HR executives sharing the stage, and sharing insights into how the employee experience continues to change, and how HR is using technology to meet changing employee expectations.

Along with Dermot O’Brien, CHRO at ADP, Scott Pitasky, executive vice president and chief partner resources officer at Starbucks, and Francine Katsoudas, chief people officer at Cisco Systems, the assembled HR leaders also examined recent research findings that illuminate just how much those expectations are changing.

ADP’s recent Evolution of Work study found, for example, that 58 percent of workers saying they believe that traditional hierarchical structures in the workplace will soon be a thing of the past. The survey also found 95 percent of employees saying they believe they will soon be able to work from anywhere.

The number of workers who anticipate working where and when they choose presents opportunities as well as challenges, says Katsoudas.

At Cisco, “we believe in a concept that everything good happens in teams,” Katsoudas told the audience.

That said, teams can still thrive while working in disparate locations, she adds. Katsoudas and the Cisco HR team has focused on helping managers “really connect with their team members, and really connect them with the strengths of their individual team members.”

For example, managers rely on the company’s talent management platform to check in to see how their team members are progressing on a given project or task, and tweak their roles if need be. Managers can also send brief surveys to their direct reports, to get a feel for the level of engagement throughout their teams, and solicit suggestions on how to improve the employee experience.

As how, when and where employees work continues to change, “technology can actually reconnect us to the workforce,” says ADP’s O’Brien.

And, “it provides us with enough data,” adds Gherson, “to help us find ways to make the employee experience better.”

Tweet This!

Reassessing Engagement Surveys

At one time in the not-too-distant past, employees at Lloyd’s Banking Group were being asked to complete employee engagement surveys every three months or so, according to David Littlefield, the London-based bank’s group head of culture, engagement and insights.

“You can’t build an engaged workforce without affecting behavioral change,” Littlefield told attendees at a Wednesday afternoon session at HRE‘s HR Technology Conference.

Indeed. The problem with conducting such frequent surveys, however, “was that [the firm’s approximately 8,000] line managers weren’t gaining any new insights and didn’t have time to digest that much data and take action” on what the latest employee polls told them.

Thus, in 2015, HR at Lloyd’s developed and introduced its Building the Best Team Survey. Including between 60 and 65 questions overall, this new survey added more open-ended questions to the mix, “to give employees an opportunity to talk about what they like and don’t like” about their jobs, and about their roles within the organization.

The goal of adding such new queries was to gain insight into how employees felt in four areas: their satisfaction with their role in the company, their pride in their work, their likelihood to be an advocate for the organization and their intent to stay with Lloyd’s, explains Littlefield.

In addition to internal variables, outside factors can impact employee engagement as well, says Littlefield. External factors such as current economic climates and media coverage of the industry, he adds, are especially vital to perceptions of firms within the financial sector, and some questions were designed to gauge how employees’ views of Lloyd’s culture are affected by how the organization and the industry is depicted outside of the company.

Polling employees less frequently and seeking more substantial input has paid off, says Littlefield.

Currently hovering between 85 percent and 88 percent, “participation rates [for employee engagement surveys] have never been higher,” he says, adding that overall employee engagement scores have increased by 11 percentage points since 2014.  Part of the reason for this rise is attributable to allowing managers to revamp employees’ roles to better match their skills and help them achieve “what they want to get out of their work,” based on responses from the annual survey.

“When we share data from engagement surveys with managers, we tell them to think about that data for a few days, and figure out how they can help employees get energized and engaged,” continues Littlefield. “We’ve found that managers don’t want to talk about the science behind engagement scores, they want insight that they can take action on.”




Tweet This!

Does Your Firm Support Well-Being?

limeade_quantum_wbereportDid you know employee engagement and employee well-being are two different things? I kind of did, but this research by Limeade and Quantum Workplace (pictured at left) made the differences about as clear as they could be, given the subject matter.

The report, released last week, defines the two thusly:

“Engagement [is] the strength of the emotional connection employees have with their work, team, company and higher purpose. … Well-being [is] a state of optimal health, happiness and purpose.”

OK, different, yes, but clearly very related. In fact, that’s one of the report’s key takeaways: that when employees feel they have higher well-being, they’re more likely to be engaged in their work.

The survey of 1,276 employees across 45 U.S. markets found, more specifically, that 88 percent of employees who cited feelings of “higher well-being” (i.e., access to healthy options, the flexibility and freedom to pursue them and find balance between work and life, and a sense of belonging and value to an organization) also said they feel engaged at work, versus 50 percent for those citing “lower well-being.”

Moreover, 83 percent of those in the “higher” category say they enjoy their work versus 41 percent in the “lower” one, and 84 percent in the higher category say they’re loyal to their teams, versus 54 percent in the lower camp.

So, is all this an intuitive no-brainer? Well, yes and no, according to Dr. Laura Hamill, Limeade’s chief people officer and managing director of the Limeade Institute. As she puts it,

“The connection between well-being and engagement may seem intuitive, but there has been little research that statistically relates the two. These findings confirm the relationship and can serve as the foundation of taking companies from good to great.

“[This] connection is great news. It means that helping disengaged employees isn’t out of an organization’s control [and can actually, by enhancing retention and productivity, lead to] better business results. “

(Here’s another link to the study’s microsite with a cool video for your viewing pleasure.)

Also key to an employee’s feeling of well-being is organizational support, defined in the report as “the resources and nudges an organization intentionally provides to encourage well-being improvement.” More specifically, it says, “this research indicates that organizations should provide the policies, visible manager and leadership support, role modeling, encouragement and norms to fully support [that] improvement.”

(One interesting note: The study found managers to be the primary source of that support, or nonsupport, over and above executive leaders. “Managers,” Hamill told me, “can be the biggest obstacles to well-being improvement because they don’t understand its connection to team success or they are nervous about how to talk with their employees about their well-being. Organizations should educate managers about the impact of well-being on employee engagement — and give them the tools and support to make it a priority.”)

The numbers certainly bear out the importance of this organizational/managerial support. Seventy-two percent of people who felt their employer cared about their well-being also reported having higher organizational support, whereas only 7 percent of employees with lower organizational support reported feeling higher well-being. In other words, as perceptions of organizational support diminish, so do perceptions of well-being. So why is this finding important? According to the report’s authors,

“You’ve heard it before: It’s more expensive to replace an employee than to retain one. A 2015 study [‘The impact of human resource practices on employee retention in the telecom sector,’ published in the International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues] states that costs associated with a person leaving unexpectedly are usually 2.5 times greater than that person’s salary.

“So why not invest those dollars back in the people who already work for you to help retain them? Employees who feel they have higher well-being and who feel they have higher organizational support are more likely to want to stay in an organization — compared to those [in the lower groups].”

In fact, researchers found, about 98 percent of those who feel they have higher well-being and higher organizational support answered favorably to the statement “I would like to be working at this organization one year from now.” That number dropped to about 79 percent for people who feel they have lower well-being and lower organizational support.

Even more impressive in terms of sheer numbers, 99 percent of employees with high well-being and high organizational support recommend their employer as a great place to work.

“Employee engagement is the holy grail for many companies aiming to attract and retain top talent,” says Jason Lauritsen, director of customer success at Quantum Workplace. “[This report] validates this goal … .”

Tweet This!

Forget the Fancy Job Titles

Employees walking around with titles like “chief happiness officer” and “product evangelist” are expected to be exuberant, enthusiastic proponents of a company’s internal and external brand.

And they could very well be crazy about the companies they work for. But they might not be so keen on such creative, “non-traditional” job titles, which a fair number of workers apparently don’t find all that endearing or even accurate.

A quarter of employees, to be exact, don’t care for using exotic monikers to describe their positions, according to a new survey from Spherion Staffing.

The Atlanta-based recruiting and staffing provider’s most recent WorkSphere survey found that 25 percent of employees consider “non-traditional” job titles unprofessional, and are against the idea of being christened with one. Nearly as many (23 percent) feel that flowery designations don’t capture what they actually do in their jobs. That said, 14 percent of employees who favor more tried-and-true titles believe they too could use improvement, saying that labels such as “project manager” and “specialist” are too vague.

Overall, 42 percent of workers said their current titles—be they old-fashioned or more “outside the box”—don’t really reflect their roles and responsibilities.

Regardless of what appears on their business cards, an overwhelming majority of employees expressed confidence in their ability to describe their jobs in a way that’s easy to understand. Eighty-nine percent of those polled said they would have no issues delivering an “elevator speech” that highlights their duties.

Those that don’t have such an easy time encapsulating what they do every day might struggle with summing up the complexities of their roles. Close to one-third (31 percent) of employees polled said their job or industry is too specialized to easily explain to a layperson. Twenty-nine percent said they try to avoid using work jargon in everyday conversation.

According to the survey, employees struggling to articulate their responsibilities may be making things harder than they have to be. Overall, 53 percent indicated they give different accounts of their jobs, depending on the audience. In addition, 11 percent said they sometimes lie about what they do for a living.

Whatever they tell others about their vocation, “employees take great pride in their job titles, and in some cases, a title that is considered limiting or hard to describe can significantly impact their job satisfaction,” says Sandy Mazur, Spherion division president, in a statement.

Faced with growing pressure to recruit and retain top workers, “reexamining how different titles are perceived and applied can make a big difference in building morale,” says Mazur, “and positioning a company as a favorable place to work.”


Tweet This!

Culture Change: Chicken or Egg?

Which comes first, culture change or increased profits?

I touched on this chicken-and-egg issue in our October 16 cover story, “Culture-Change Agents.” The article looks at how Microsoft CHRO Kathleen Hogan and her team have been working to develop a “growth mind-set” among 118,000 workers at the tech giant.

Some experts argue the best way to get the culture you want is to rack up some business successes first. Bob Herbold, a business consultant and former Microsoft COO, says it’s no different than getting a football team on a winning streak. First you need to win, and then use employee excitement to create a virtuous cycle.

“The primary ingredient for changing the culture is winning,” he told me. The key, he says, is to get employees “to realize that we’re having fun, I have stake in this, I feel part of it.”

It’s a lot tougher to create success by first changing the culture, he says. “To try to create an ‘up’ culture in a ‘down’ business is almost impossible.”

But there is some evidence that culture change can improve the bottom line, says Felix Meschke, an associate professor of finance at the University of Kansas School of Business.

Research by Meschke and several of his colleagues in Lawrence, along with others, “suggests that a positive work environment is associated with higher firm performance,” he told me in an email interview over the summer as I was working on the Microsoft story.

Meschke worked with Minjie Huang , Pingshu Li  and James P. Guthrie on a study published last year in the Journal of Corporate Finance. It found that in family-owned companies, at least, having a “human-capital-enhancing culture improves firm performance.”

Meschke says that study looked at a large number of companies and controlled for many variables. “Based on large-scale statistical analysis,” he told me, “I am quite confident that, in general, corporate culture can be an asset for companies that benefits shareholders and other stakeholders.”

But he notes that isn’t the same as saying a specific HR initiative at a specific company, like Microsoft, improves profits. Measuring the effect of a such an effort requires something that’s impossible: a “control” that researchers can use for comparison — a company that is identical in every way except lacking the culture change.

“In a nutshell,” Meschke wrote, “Is it plausible that the HR approach improves performance? Yes, it is. Is there a way to attribute its impact on MSFT’s performance through quantitative analysis? No.”

Tweet This!

Successful C-Suite Psychopaths

Higher-than-expected levels of psychopathic traits exist among people found in the upper echelons of the corporate business sector, and companies should undertake psychological screening to help identify ‘successful psychopaths.’

That’s according to new research presented at the Australian Psychological Society’s Congress, which was recently held in Melbourne.

Forensic psychologist Nathan Brooks says emerging studies show that, while one in 100 people in the general community and one in five people in the prison system are considered psychopathic, these traits are common in the upper echelons of the corporate world, with a prevalence of between 3 percent and 21 percent.

Brooks says the term “successful psychopath,” which describes high-flyers with psychopathic traits such as insincerity, a lack of empathy or remorse, egocentric, charming and superficial, has emerged in the wake of the 2008 global financial crisis, prompting a range of new studies.

To arrive at their conclusions, Brooks and colleagues first examined psychopathic traits in the business sector. One study of 261 corporate professionals in the supply chain management industry showed extremely high prevalence rates of psychopathy, with 21 percent of participants found to have clinically significant levels of psychopathic traits — a figure comparable to prison populations.

The current issue of HRE also features a story by Julie Cook Ramirez about how HR can weed out psychopaths in the workplace:

What sets a psychopathic leader apart is the way in which he or she manages or interact with people, says William Spangler, associate professor of management and organizational behavior at the School of Management, State University of New York at Binghamton.

“Psychopathic leaders are toxic individuals who manage subordinates [with] a combination of fear, threats, punishment and public humiliation,” says Spangler. “They present a positive persona to their superiors and are often promoted for what is perceived to be their effectiveness, but they can [cause] great harm to the organization by destroying relationships, damaging work units and putting the entire company at risk for legal action.”

Ramirez also quotes A.J. Marsden, assistant professor of human services and psychology at Beacon College in Leesburg, Fla. who says that, by hiring a person who demonstrates these types of tendencies, “you are putting your other employees at risk for bullying and other abuse.”

“The organization may end up losing many good employees [and] facing harassment suits against the psychopath,” says Marsden. “At higher levels of employment, psychopaths may engage in unethical and illegal behaviors, such as embezzlement, just to look successful.”


Tweet This!

Ratedly Review-Tracking App Rates

I guess my biggest surprise after speaking recently with Joel Cheesman — creator of the new Ratedly anonymous employee-review monitoring service for employers that launched in May — is that competitors don’t seem to be furiously chasing or even nipping at his heels since the launch.

Joel Cheeseman and his Ratedly app.
Joel Cheesman and his Ratedly app.

Equally surprising is Cheesman isn’t that concerned about competition or heel-nipping at all. He’s doing just fine with the 10 primary review sites he spiders to — including Glassdoor and Indeed — and Ratedly’s slow-but-steady clientele growth.

But the app — which he was good enough to demo for me — is so simple and straightforward, and the most logical next step for helping employers through the employee-review revolution, you’d think other vendors would be clamoring to partner with him or give him a run for his money. If either of those things happens, he tells me, “we’ll welcome it.”

Bottom line, he adds, “we want to be the best at what we do, so we’re not against people looking into what we’re doing and trying to take us on.”

At the same time, says Cheesman, without giving away too many numerical specifics, “there’s no pressure to make a ton of money real fast here. We’re building customers at a rate that I’m comfortable with. It’s all going well, and self-funded, and I’m going to keep it that way.”

It didn’t take long for Cheesman, a 20-year veteran of the recruiting and employment industry, to walk me through his brainstorm several days ago. It’s really that basic. Resembling a Twitter feed, if you will, Ratedly is, in essence, a mobile-enabled real-time index for iPhones, iPads and iPods that constantly checks for subscribers’ company pages and or company mentions on anonymous employee-review sites.

“Employers waste so much time these days hitting the refresh button to track reviews about them online,” he says. “We saw a real need out there to take that task off the plate of HR professionals across every industry category. No one is immune to anonymous reviews.” He adds:

“The days of putting your head in the sand are over. Companies NEED to know what’s being said out there. If you have someone flaming your company and you don’t know about it, you’re at a real disadvantage. People you’re interviewing are going to these sites. That’s your brand … not what you’re spending on your website. If the community at large says you ‘suck,’ all that [other] branding stuff [you’re doing and paying for] doesn’t do any good or make any sense at all.” 

Anyone who signs up for the $150-a-month service gets automatic access to the data Ratedly’s bot scrapes every day from the 10 main review sites in its arsenal. Clients can also ask that custom feeds be added if their company happens to be showing up regularly on an additional site as well. They can bookmark whatever comments they choose and/or share them with whomever they want.

They also get push notifications whenever their company is mentioned so they can get on with the work they’re supposed to be doing, as opposed to constantly watching and waiting for what employees and job candidates think of them. Or worrying about missing another anonymous review. In addition, Ratedly will warn them if their reputation appears to be trending up or down on any given week.

Next on Cheesman’s to-do list is enhancing the analytics and metrics with word-search capabilities, being able to tie an organization’s trending reputation to stock fluctuations and company news, and getting more consultancies and agencies involved with the product.

“A lot of agencies are being sought right now to help employers with their reputations and employer brands,” Cheesman says, “so working more with and in that space will be our next big thing. That will be huge.”

He also plans to work harder with clients’ CEOs and other top leaders such as CHROs to get them more personally and regularly involved with social media, especially as it pertains to employee-review sites. In his eyes, this will speak volumes to younger workers and job candidates. Think about it, he says:

“You’re a CEO. You go out and find a positive comment posted by one of your younger employees on Glassdoor. Instead of moving on, you take the time to post [to Twitter, Facebook, etc.] something like, ‘Hey, another happy employee!’ with a link to Glassdoor. That shows that young person [and all his or her friends] that you’re a CEO who’s on top of social media and took the time to notice someone’s post; that looks really, really good in the public eye.”

Tweet This!