Every issue, Fortune magazine profiles a company on their “Best Companies to Work For” list. This month, they chose SAS, an analytics software firm.
The main perk cited in the article is SAS’s awesome daycare offering. They subsidize 75 percent of the cost for their on-site daycare facility, which features high-quality caregivers, an on-call doctor, and close proximity to the cafeteria for easy parent-child lunches.
Other perks include:
- The opportunity to win “SAS bucks’ that can be used towards a free haircut at the on-site hair salon.
- On-site car wash and detailing, dry cleaning, and alterations (all subsidized).
- Flexible work schedules.
- On-site medical facilities.
These are all great, but they’re not the types of things that make SAS a great place to work. In fact, if a well-intentioned HR pro read this list and thought, “I want to be a ‘Best Place to Work.’ I’m going to implement these things at my organization!” they would most likely fail. Hard.
What’s the problem?
The problem is that most of the stuff magazines like Fortune and [Your City Here] Business Journal include in their write-up of why these companies rock has nothing to do with why those companies actually rock.
The fact that SAS provides all this subsidized crap doesn’t mean they’re a great place to work for. Those perks are just icing on the incredibly delicious culture cake.
Perks don’t make up for a crappy organizational culture
Would employees really enjoy working at SAS if people weren’t evaluated fairly on their work, promoted based on merit, and given the freedom and flexibility to do kick-ass work? If managers were political and the work constantly sucked, would anyone there really care about the subsidized day-care?
Nope.
I don’t doubt SAS is an awesome company to work for. But I think all the perks Fortune cited in the article are reflections of a great culture – not the cause of it.
The problem with Best Place to Work lists is that they place too much value on the wrong things.
Want to be a “Best Place to Work?” Let employees work for well-trained, effective managers on great work that they’re passionate about it. Recruit them into an organization that’s exactly what you told them it would be during the hiring process. Then get out of the way and let them do some kick-ass stuff.
Their HR strategy isn’t the same as yours
There’s another danger is getting caught up in the hype of “Best Place to Work” list. SAS’s family-friendly HR strategy probably isn’t the same as yours.
From the Fortune article:
[The company's family-friendly reputation] started back in 1981, when founder James Goodnight learned of an employee’s intention to become a stay-at-home mom after her maternity leave. Fearful of losing talent, he opened on-site daycare and persuaded her to stay.
SAS’s talent pool includes lots of families. For the people they recruit and the people they want to retain, these kinds of perks matter. They can show a real business impact by measuring and demonstrating that these perks helped attract and keep the rockstar employees at the organization.
If your talent market isn’t the same as SAS’s, these perks wouldn’t do anything for you. And if your culture doesn’t support people taking advantage of these perks, well… you’re just wasting organizational money.
Next time you read a “Best Place to Work” article, consider whether or not the fluffy stuff actually matters.
That’s really well-put. Org. culture is usually a key missing variable in these “surveys”/contests. One size never fits all, even within an organization: my notion of what makes a great place to work won’t be the same as yours, or his, or hers.
Love it! So True! I personally think the fluff is nice but when it comes down to it, it’s not the reason people stay at a job. They stay because of the type of work they do gives them pleasure, their boss is teaching them something and they have an opportunity to advance. The fluff is also the first thing to go when times get hard. Employees could care less about the fluff if it means they won’t get a bonus or a pay increase or get laid off.
@Ken – True. I think understanding the needs and wants (generally speaking) of your current and future talent is critical though. Like you said, one size won’t fit all, so diversifying a bit is definitely important.
@Allyson – Thanks for the comment. I don’t know if people care about the fluff stuff or the bonuses as much as being able to do great work that they care about in a supportive work environment. For some people, money matters a lot more than it does for others.
When I read “Best Places to Work” articles, I’m always reminded of magazines with “50 Most Beautiful People on the Face of the Planet” articles.
Are those people really the 50 most beautiful in the world? Obviously not. A more accurate title: “50 Really Attractive People Whose Careers Are Really Hot Right Now.”
Similarly, “Best Places to Work” articles miss lots of great companies that fly under the radar, especially small businesses and nonprofits.
@Krista – Great point! From what I’ve heard, even getting considered and surveyed for one of these lists is pretty difficult and involves quite a bit of PR and leg work.
Well put. I completely agree. The list should be renamed “most innovative employee perks”… It’s interesting to read about these ideas but the sad thing is that many companies simply copy some of the ideas – hoping that it will make them a “best place to work”. It’s like throwing darts. In actuality they are often throwing money out the window if they don’t carefully consider their own culture, employee value proposition, and what types of employees they really need to attract in order to execute their own company mission. In general, “best practices” in HR practices are overrated.
@Matt – Thanks for the comment! What sort of HR best practices do you think are actually worth their weight?
I worked at a company that was on one of these lists. First of all – you have to “apply” to be considered – meaning it’s already self-selecting so it’s not someone from the outside making the decision to include a company. Second – internally – there was a huge push to fill out the “questionnaire” positively – so it really didn’t represent the true feelings of the employees – more the fear that if you didn’t fill it out the way they wanted somehow they’d find you.
I don’t think I’d trust any of them unless there was some way to ensure that it was a bottom up ranking – driven by the employees with little or no management influence.
Read the Netflix stuff on their culture – they specifically state that a great place to work isn’t food, benefits, ore games – it’s working with “stunning” performers.
@Paul – Thanks for the comment, and providing a little more insight into the process.
If anyone’s curious about the Netflix culture stuff Paul referenced, check out their Slideshare presentation here: http://www.slideshare.net/reed2001/culture-1798664
I lived in Raleigh for 12 years and knew many people who worked for SAS. Those perks were the icing on the cake that reinforced the culture that existed. Their culture is supportive, encouraging, and empowering. Employees create the hours that work best for them, encourage in their professional development, and want their employees to feel like a family, which they accomplish successfully. They believe in the future of their employees’ kids and created their own school for this purpose (which they also subsidize), though non-SAS students can apply as well and be accepted. They alleviate worries of errands by those same perks, including onsite medical care/mini-hospital. The top 50 places to work should focus on the culture and employee attitudes about the organization in which they work in terms of job satisfaction, their development opportunities, and management (in my opinion). These are the areas that when culture doesn’t work are the chief complaints. It’s been said many times – employees don’t leave companies, they leave bosses. So instead why aren’t we talking more about the management of the Top 50 companies and how they affect employees? Just my thoughts!
@Anissa – Thanks for providing a sneak-peak into the culture at SAS. I wish that was the kind of stuff they focused on more in these articles!