Posts Tagged ‘reputation rankings’

As reputation watchers, we are always watching the big barometers of reputation such as Fortune World's Most Admired Companies and its sister, Fortune's Best Companies to Work For (BCTWF).  Below is an analysis and comparison of data points examined on the Fortune Best Companies to Work For list between the years 2006 and 2011. Even further below is some analysis on LGBT offerings, healthcare benefits, job and job sharing growth and other unusual benefits as factors in the 2011 winners of the workplace. All Data 2006-2011

	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011
%Companies with Unusual Perks	7%	5%	15%	8%	16%	13%
%Companies with On-Site Child Care	33%	32%	29%	32%	32%	30%
%Companies with Fully Paid Sabbaticals	25%	22%	18%	19%	19%	21%
%Women Average	N/A	N/A	49%	49%	49%	48%
%Minorities Average	N/A	N/A	28%	30%	29%	29%
%Companies with 100% Paid Health	14%	16%	21%	15%	13%	14%
%Companies with Job Sharing	N/A	71%	63%	61%	68%	56%
%Companies with LGBT-Friendly Policies	N/A	92%	95%	95%	96%	99%
%Companies with On-Site Gym	N/A	N/A	69%	69%	69%	67%
%Companies with Subsidized Gym Membership	N/A	N/A	59%	78%	72%	71%
%Companies with Compressed Work Weeks	N/A	N/A	82%	75%	81%	81%
%Companies with LGBT-Friendly Benefits	N/A	N/A	70%	79%	83%	88%
%Companies with No Layoffs	N/A	N/A	N/A	9%	17%	15%
Average Job Growth	7%	9%	9%	8%	1%	2%
Average Voluntary Turnover	N/A	N/A	N/A	12%	7%	7%

LGBT As a Factor In the past decade, American companies have increasingly provided programs and initiatives to recognize the LGBT community in the workplace.  A large 95% of The Best Companies to Work For had LGBT-friendly policies and seven in 10 (70%) had LGBT-friendly benefits in 2008. In 2011, the number of Best Companies with LGBT-friendly benefits was an astounding 88% coupled with an almost perfect 99% of Best Companies with LGBT-friendly policies. While the Best Companies' LGBT-friendly benefits have always lagged behind LGBT-friendly policies, each year the gap between the two has narrowed; in 2008 there was a difference of 25% which has since shrunk to a mere 11% in 2011. The LGBT community has become a widely-recognized group within the American workplace and the Best Companies have been quick to make headway in this area. Health Benefits as a Factor Major corporations at Davos this year came together for the World Economic Forum Workplace Wellness Alliance. The Alliance consists of 31 companies committed to advancing wellness in the workplace. Goals of the alliance include knowledge sharing and developing and promoting the use of standardized metrics to create a global standard of wellness, hopefully increasing worker productivity. Looking at health initiatives for Best Companies, after rising from 2006 to 2008, 100% paid healthcare was in decline from 2008-2010.  2011 saw the first uptick in two years moving from 13% to 14% of Best Companies but still not near the peak of 21% in 2008. While 100% paid health seems like a luxury not all companies can afford, a healthy work force can be a powerful tool that may make the investment worthwhile. On a similar note, only 59% of Best Companies offered subsidized gym memberships in 2008 compared to a whopping 78% in 2009. The number of Best Companies with subsidized gym memberships has fallen in the past two years, but far from pre-2009 levels (currently 71%). Best Companies are still trying to keep their workforce fit and healthy even in the wake of a recession which demonstrates that employee health is a staple of a great workplace. Unusual Perks as a Factor Recently, more employers have been offering not only physical health perks, but mental health programs as well for their employees. Health isn’t confined to gym and fitness centers. Companies like Zappos.com offer employees an on-site resident “life” and “goals coach” that advises employees on work/life balance and discovery of  higher meaning in their lives (sounds awesome, right?). Defense contractor SRC/SRCTec offers employee-led support groups that focus on alleviating the stress of caring for an aging parent. And starting with a yoga room at Ebay in 2008, the idea of peaceful exercising is re-emerging in 2011 with Intuit’s free Yoga, Pilates and Zumba (Latin-inspired dance fitness--first time I heard of this, oops) classes. Job Growth & Job Sharing as a Factor While perhaps a reflection of the economy, average job growth at the Best Companies ticked up slightly after falling to its all-time low of less than 1% in 2010. Traditionally, average job growth for Best Companies had hovered between 7% and 9% (between 2006-2009) before falling sharply in 2010. For the Best Companies, average voluntary turnover also moved in a similar direction. Voluntary turnover fell from almost 12% in 2009 to 7% in 2010 where it has remained flat through 2011. The past three years have proven to be difficult for the unemployed, perhaps pushing more workers to hold onto their positions. Job sharing reached its zenith in 2007 with 71% of Best Companies offering such a program. The offering steadily declined for the next two years with a small surge in 2010, but ultimately falling to a five-year low of 56% in 2011. Job sharing may be on the decline lately as more Americans are pressed for income, looking for full-time employment as a suitable solution. [Many thanks to Ross W for his help on this.]

If you are interested in "the order of things," as Malcolm Gladwell titles his smart article  (subscription required) on college rankings, you will be very keen to read this article appearing in The New Yorker. The central argument is about the validity of the U.S. News rankings criteria and its ability to drive sane university presidents insane. The U.S. News magazine no longer exists but the appetite for these sundry rankings of colleges, law firms and hospitals, and more, is unsatiable.  When the 2011 rankings on the Best Colleges were released, the web site saw more than 10 million visitors that month. As Gladwell says, the head of the rankings team -- Robert Morse -- sits atop an entire  industry that invented itself.  Gladwell goes through arguments one by one to point out the arbitrariness involved in picking  the best colleges. He says, "There's no direct way to measure the quality of an institution--how well a college manages to inform, inspire, and challenge its students. So the U.S. News algorithm relies instead on proxies for quality--and the proxies for educational quality turn out to be flimsy at best." Ultimately Gladwell gets to the key point. He quotes Michael Bastedo, an educational sociologist at the University of Michigan, who has spent time analyzing the U.S. News methodology. Bastedo says it simply, "rankings drive reputation." I could not have said it better -- in three words no less. The professor also says, and I wholeheartedly agree, that sometimes rankings do work. He cites two good examples -- asking professors in a field to rate others in the field makes perfect sense since they probably read what their peers are writing, saying and doing while training students. Or he says that rankings work when the subjectrequires specialized knowledge such as the Wall Street Journal college rankings based on what corporate recruiters are seeing from graduating seniors looking for jobs. But as we all know and intuit for the most part, rankings are very subjective and depend on who you are asking, how the attributes are worded, weighted and ordered. Gladwell's article is a good read because it becomes immediately clear that many variables go into what makes something number one and it is very likely to be not what you are looking for as a filter. There is no doubt that there is a vicious loop today where rankings drive reputation and reputation drives rankings. Despite this insightful knowledge from Gladwell, we all still have to compete according to the standards and rankings of the day. Alas, have to go and fill out an application for something right now. I might just win.

   Over the past few weeks, there have been several reputation rankings released. I am stunned by the proliferation of rankings on reputation. It is getting harder to keep track of whose ranking is whose and what’s behind the numbers. Whereas there used to only be one or two major reputation rankings, today there are scores. We (my team at Weber Shandwick) knows because we keep track of them every day in our database called Scoreboxx.  We must have over 700 primetime corporate rankings that companies can compete on and receive recognition.  These rankings fall into broad categories such as corporate responsibility, workplace, diversity, leadership, etc.  Years ago, a company only had to worry about Fortune’s Most Admired Companies survey. Now you have to be on the alert for lists that give you a thumbs up or thumbs down.

 

In the past few weeks, we have seen the release of Harris Interactive’s Reputation Quotient,  Reputation Institute’s  Pulse Survey and  Millward Brown’s  Global Brands (BrandZ).  All good and “reputable”  lists. However, they are all coming out at about the same time and comingling in people’s minds.  Years ago when I was at Fortune, we conducted a landmark survey about business readership of business magazines. A few years later, Forbes conducted their  own readership survey of business magazines with a twist that confused the marketplace. The two surveys were similar but because many people still confused Fortune and Forbes, Fortune’s competitive advantage was weakened.  

 

My reputation advocate friend Joy Sever is right when she says that all these lists are diluting one another because most people do not understand the differences between them and how the data are gathered.  She was right to also say that pretty soon it will all be about the reputation of the reputation rankings. It seems like that has already begun.

 

The most important way to measure reputation is to take these reputation rankings into account but focus primarily on your own customized research that drills down into your most important stakeholders’ perceptions and most critical reputation dimensions. By tracking your own company reputation vs. competitors over time, reputation-building has its best shot.