Perhaps if more people utilized glassdoor and talent steered clear, then we might see a positive change here.
Until then, there is no incentive for employers to spend time formalizing and providing that feedback.
Until then, there is no incentive for employers to spend time formalizing and providing that feedback.
If a review's only advice to management are: "Continue doing what you're doing!", "keep up the good work!" or "make sure our awesome culture isn't diluted as we grow!", then they're fake.
If a review's only cons are reframing the cons left my legitimate reviewers as sour grapes by someone who can't handle fast-paced environments, startups, or responsibilities that aren't clearly defined, they're fake.
But the biggest red flag is positive reviews left in succession over the period of a few days to a month.
Much like Amazon reviews, it seems that the only reviews you can glean worthwhile information from are the bad reviews.
When five people say that their work environment is shit, there may be something to it.
But really, if your reasoning was robust, it would work in both directions. I don’t think you’d agree with the statement “if five people say that their work environment is great, there may be something to it”. The system can be (and is) gamed in both directions, and there are people who have incentives to do so in either direction, for both “justified” and “unjustified” reasons. Any reason you come up with to be skeptical of a good review also applies to a bad one.
Perhaps you're referring to other channels of communication, but I'd much rather have a rejection call than no contact at all. Corporate ghosting is much more sadistic.