I don’t think this is such a good idea for job reviews, given that you will not be anonymous. When I left a bad workplace for a year or more I was scared to say anything negative about them publically. Glassdoor allows anonymity—which has its good and bad sides. But DM—I can see people who are positive about the workplace messaging you, but not the people that have some criticism at hand. We should not even do that, because we don’t know how are you connected to our previous employee, and maybe whatever we share with you—like a warning—will be later used for litigation? I just feel like DMs will only bias a person in the positive direction, not giving a broader view from multiple perspectives? Just a thought.
I feel like being worried about litigation for being honest in a DM would put that org in the bottom 5% (1%?). It does seem useful to have strategies that add signal for most cases. Though it does seem useful to know that in the worst orgs people might not speak openly.
I’ve been informed that non-disparagement clauses are more common than I believed. Those clauses might be a reason that someone would feel bound to keep their mouth shut. I still think that it would be hard to have non-disparagement clauses with all of an org’s ex employees, but you might be missing out of the views of the most disgruntled 1% of employees across a wider swath of orgs.
I think that sending something generic like “I’m not optimistic about [org] impact”, or even a very neutral review, can give some information without a significant litigation risk.
I would also consider an extremely positive review a useful signal, especially by ex-employees or ex-volunteers.
I think I would personally find it much more informative than a glassdoor review, after hearing a lot of very negative stories about Glassdoor (including yours).
Nice solution.
In a similar vein, I’d like to see more people asking “Can anyone DM me a quick review of [EA org] as a place to work / service provider?”
I don’t think this is such a good idea for job reviews, given that you will not be anonymous. When I left a bad workplace for a year or more I was scared to say anything negative about them publically. Glassdoor allows anonymity—which has its good and bad sides. But DM—I can see people who are positive about the workplace messaging you, but not the people that have some criticism at hand. We should not even do that, because we don’t know how are you connected to our previous employee, and maybe whatever we share with you—like a warning—will be later used for litigation? I just feel like DMs will only bias a person in the positive direction, not giving a broader view from multiple perspectives?
Just a thought.
I feel like being worried about litigation for being honest in a DM would put that org in the bottom 5% (1%?). It does seem useful to have strategies that add signal for most cases. Though it does seem useful to know that in the worst orgs people might not speak openly.
I’ve been informed that non-disparagement clauses are more common than I believed. Those clauses might be a reason that someone would feel bound to keep their mouth shut. I still think that it would be hard to have non-disparagement clauses with all of an org’s ex employees, but you might be missing out of the views of the most disgruntled 1% of employees across a wider swath of orgs.
I think that sending something generic like “I’m not optimistic about [org] impact”, or even a very neutral review, can give some information without a significant litigation risk.
I would also consider an extremely positive review a useful signal, especially by ex-employees or ex-volunteers.
I think I would personally find it much more informative than a glassdoor review, after hearing a lot of very negative stories about Glassdoor (including yours).