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 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.