Big tech companies like Facebook Inc. and Alphabet Inc.’s Google, long seen as some of the world’s most desirable workplaces offering countless perks and employee benefits, are losing some of their shine.
The Silicon Valley companies dropped out of the Top 10 “best places to work” in the U.S., according to Glassdoor’s annual rankings released Tuesday. HubSpot Inc., a cloud-computing software company, grabbed the No. 1 ranking while tech firms DocuSign Inc. and Ultimate Software were three and eight, respectively.
Facebook, which has been rated as the “best place to work” three times in the past 10 years, was ranked 23rd. It’s the social-media company’s lowest position since it first made the list in 2011 as the top-rated workplace. Facebook, based in Menlo Park, California, was ranked seventh last year.
Google, voted “best place to work” in 2015 and a Top-10 finisher the previous eight years, came in at No. 11 on Glassdoor’s list. Apple Inc., once a consistent Top-25 finisher, was ranked 84th. Amazon Inc., which has never been known for a positive internal culture, failed to make the list for the 12th straight year.
Microsoft Corp. was one of the lone big technology companies to jump in the rankings. The Redmond, Washington-based software company moved to No. 21 from 34 a year ago.
The annual list ranks companies using employee reviews on areas such as compensation, benefits, culture and senior management. Many of the big tech companies, including Facebook and Google, have been criticized this year for a myriad of issues, and in some cases employees have publicly opposed executive decisions.Best Places to Work 20201. HubSpot2. Bain & Co.3. DocuSign4. In-N-Out Burger5. Sammons Financial Group6. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory7. Intuitive Surgical8. Ultimate Software9. VIPKid10. Southwest AirlinesData: Glassdoor
At Google, employees have protested against the company on a number of topics, including the company’s “intimidation” tactics against worker organizers. The results of an internal employee poll at the internet search giant, reported by Bloomberg in February, showed that fewer employees were inspired by Chief Executive Officer Sundar Pichai’s vision than a year earlier. It also found fewer workers believe senior management could successfully lead the company into the future.
At Facebook, which just like Google provides employees with perks including fr
I had no idea I was making a controversial statement Monday when I wrote that Satya Nadella deserved his $42 million salary, given the value he’s created at Microsoft. “The comparison with sports figures…is plain wrong. We should not pay executives like divas,” J.S. wrote in. “It’s a false truth that all of a company’s increase (or decrease) in value is attributable to the CEO,” wrote M.G.
To be fair, I didn’t say ALL of Microsoft’s $700 billion increase in value was attributable to Nadella; but I did say a significant chunk of it was. And listening yesterday to Microsoft U.S. President Kate Johnson speak at Fortune’s Most Powerful Women NextGen Summit only reinforced my view. Microsoft’s soaring value is directly attributable to a culture change driven by the CEO.
At the core of that change, Johnson said, was empathy: “When he took over almost six years ago, he saw the company on the brink of obsolescence. He saw that not only did we need to play in this cloud market, but we were going to have to very quickly change so many things to fulfill this mission. I don’t think empathy was at the core of our old culture. We were the ‘know it alls.’ We wanted to become the ‘learn it alls.’”
Under Nadella, says Johnson, the company “completely opened the Microsoft ecosystem. We want to meet our customers wherever they are on whatever device they want in whatever ecosystem they want.” That’s a big change from the old Microsoft, where visitors were advised to leave their iPads at the door.
That kind of culture change at a massive company could only have been accomplished by an extraordinary leader. I’ll match his achievements against LeBron, Federer and Messi any day. Leadership matters.
Other highlights of day one of the Next Gen summit:
“We changed the vocabulary around recruiting. We used to talk about whether the candidate was aggressive enough to do the job. We removed this word from our recruiting vocabulary six years ago. I don’t know what ‘aggressive’ means other than obnoxious.” Instead, “the questions we ask now are: are you intellectually curious, are you assertive when you form a view, do you have an insatiable desire to learn, and can you articulate your view with training?”
—Rana Yared, partner, Goldman Sachs
“There is no such thing as over-communication.”
—Sigal Cordero, Vice President of the urban mobility program at General Motors
“There are great waves in Chin