If you don’t follow the English website often, then I believe it may be a little strange to you. It is actually one of the most popular websites in the field of human resource management. In addition to providing the latest employment information and important industry trends, it also has a well-known column-"Employer Evaluation Zone".
Here, the website will issue a form to employees who have worked in or are currently employed by a company, and the employees will rate the company with a score between 1-5 stars. There are also three text boxes under the score column, which are "good review", "bad review" and "recommendation". For many job seekers, before accepting an offer from a company, you may wish to carefully study the company's "employer evaluation", which will benefit you a lot.
Specifically, for job seekers who are interested in joining Chinese technology companies, these evaluations are valuable resources. They can help job seekers better understand the characteristics of each company and help them find a job that suits them. the company. From the company's perspective, these evaluation reports are also important feedback. It can encourage companies to improve management. On the one hand, it can help them retain the company's stock ministers, and on the other hand, it can also help them recruit talented foreign employees and domestic elites with international perspectives.
This article will focus on the eight major Chinese technology giants: Alibaba, Tencent, Baidu, Huawei, Lenovo, Cheetah Mobile (formerly Kingsoft), ZTE, and LeTV. In order to ensure that the data provided by the evaluation is representative, the companies included in this analysis must have a sample size of at least 30 reports. At the same time, considering that almost all companies have some employees who have a deep grudge against the company they work for based on personal reasons, this article will mainly focus on some common conclusions pointed by each evaluation in the analysis report, so as to portray a covered company. A clearer and more perceptible portrait of the company including culture, working atmosphere, and development trends.
With a score of 4.4 out of 5, Alibaba is the company with the highest overall average score among the eight major groups. The most notable achievement of the Hangzhou-based technology giant is that, except for a 1-star report, none of the other 148 reviews is lower than Samsung.
But even Alibaba can hardly say that Baibi is flawless. Although many reviews have praised Ali's welfare system and working environment, the squeeze of work on private life and the huge work pressure have also caused headaches for almost all employees who have worked in Ali.
It is worth noting that most of Ali’s evaluation reports come from employees working in China. Most of these evaluations lack detailed descriptions, and there are many reports that lack detailed descriptions that are unique to Chinglish. The syntax is wrong. This all points to one thing: most reviewers-if not all-are native Chinese.
Tencent is another Internet company that has achieved outstanding results. In all of its 213 reviews, most of the scores are 4 or 5 stars, and negative reviews are very rare. Similar to Alibaba, the issue of work-life balance has also been brought to the fore, and many employees also said that they have difficulty coping with the high-pressure work environment. On the one hand, there are not many criticisms related to corporate structure and senior managers; on the other hand, criticisms of office politics and the lack of professionalism of middle managers are not uncommon.
Among the many positive reviews of Tencent, one of the most striking highlights is the reward system. Human resources executives will give employees allowances from time to time (to motivate them to work hard). Tencent employees working in mainland China have benefited especially.
Unfortunately, when Tencent’sWhen the executives applied the personnel management principles that they had freely used in the country to their Palo Alto office in California, they encountered some minor troubles. When we used the filter function to remove employee reports from other regions and only retained comments from American employees, we found that the score immediately became 3.2.
Although the number of these reports is small, there are not many problems at all: complaints about language problems and lack of individual autonomy are very common, and some employees even implicitly stated that the company has "improving employees by illegal means".
Like the other two giants of BAT, Baidu's overall score is also very high. In a total of 317 reviews, most employees gave Baidu a high score of 4 to 5 stars. Although the problem of work-life balance still exists, compared with Ali and Tencent, Baidu employees are in a relatively better situation. Not only that, the employees are very satisfied with the creative working environment here, and admire the talented members of the team. Even after searching and filtering, only calculating the evaluation of employees working in the United States, most people still give Baidu a very high score, about 4.5 stars.
Although the reviewers praised the company’s CEO Robin Li and expressed satisfaction with the company’s overall operation; however, employees still made a lot of criticisms about the power struggle within the company. The report also shows that some middle and senior managers lack respect for employees.
Huawei has received 2,400 evaluation forms, which is currently more than the number of reports received by any other Chinese company in this column. At the same time, reviewers from different countries on six continents also have diverse cultural backgrounds.
Analyzing the evaluation form of Huawei, we will find that the company has mixed reputation among employees: On the one hand, employees are satisfied with company benefits and company products, and believe that Huawei is an ideal starting point for their personal careers; But on the other hand, they cruelly criticized the company's various unprofessional behaviors in human resource management. In the eyes of overseas employees, the company not only lacks the spirit of tolerance and restricts employee autonomy, but even the company's own moral values are "doubtful." In some places, there still exists management discrimination against local employees.
On the positive side, Huawei is good at using a task-oriented management model (to motivate employees). The reviewer agrees with the company's customer-centric development philosophy, and notices that the company has been working hard to fulfill its promises (to customers) and continues to provide consumers with cheap and good-quality products.
But the waves of criticism are more worthy of attention: in the country where Huawei’s branch is located, local employees have complained: management is not transparent, employees are insufficiently integrated with the company, and the company does not pay enough attention to multiculturalism. ; There are countless allegations of racism, age discrimination and gender discrimination. Not only that, overseas human resource managers are still using outdated methods to manage local employees, and some methods even violate professional ethics. Although Huawei has a distinctive global face, these reports will convince people that operating local branches in a localized manner is definitely not on the task list of the headquarters executives.
However, considering the tremendous achievements that Huawei has made, we really should not be too demanding of them, because, on the whole, the company's globalization strategy is progressing smoothly. However, for non-Chinese job seekers, Huawei may not be an ideal choice.
Similar to Huawei, Lenovo has branches all over the world, and its influence in the United States is particularly noticeable. As a result, it has received as many as 1,000The remaining evaluation reports are not surprising to Lenovo. Although the score of 3.3 shows that Lenovo is far from perfect, a careful study of their report will reveal many bright spots. In particular, when we compare Lenovo and Huawei together, these highlights become more prominent.
First of all, if we limit the scope of comparison to only a few companies whose evaluation reports are mostly written by foreigners, we will find that Lenovo’s 3.3 score is actually the highest score; even if all eight companies are included in the comparison, then After searching and filtering and only calculating the evaluation results of these companies in their overseas branches, you will also find that Lenovo’s score has almost no change from its total score of 3.3. In sharp contrast, many other companies All scores are falling off a cliff.
In the evaluation report, many employees have worked at Lenovo for five or even ten years, so even if they write negative reviews, their brushstrokes are full of deep attachment to the company: they will praise their colleagues, Praise the company's management, and also deeply agree with the company's corporate culture. Compared with information in black and white, some unmentioned content tends to attract our attention: when Huawei’s reviews are full of accusations such as discrimination, language barriers, cultural conflicts and even moral violations, similar Complaints almost disappeared in Lenovo's report.
What’s more commendable is that, whether it’s a negative or a positive evaluation, there will be a detailed and considerate feedback under each form. Obviously, these feedbacks come from the company’s people with an international perspective and excellent communication skills. The handwriting of a resource expert. For these professional talents, all I can do is to appreciate: they have established a deep relationship with their employees, and they have also contributed insight, focus, and infinite energy to the corporate brand created by their employers. It can be seen from these evaluation reports that both the company's expansion strategy and the company's personnel management efforts have made outstanding contributions to Lenovo's localized operations in the US market.
However, the company's lackluster operating performance in recent years and the declining market share year after year have also caused many employees to express concerns about its prospects in the company. In addition, most employees also pointed the finger at the company's low operating efficiency and complicated management processes. In short, although Lenovo's "answer sheet" has many bright spots, there are also hidden worries.
With only 33 reviews, Cheetah Mobile’s data is the smallest sample size among the eight major companies. And the data itself is quite interesting, the positive reviews are really a bit...well...too much touted. Such evaluations are even suspected of deliberately "brushing good reviews", so these positive evaluations are really...well, they lack reference value. Although I would not be naive to think that all companies will honestly face Glassdoor scores without doing any behavior that affects the data, but I still want to say that, like Cheetah, write so-called " "Positive evaluation" cannot fail to attract my attention.
Sure enough, those negative reviews tell us a completely different story: employees complain about language barriers and cultural barriers, managers’ poor interpersonal skills, and arrogant company leadership. Similar to other companies, the squeeze and encroachment of working hours on private life has once again become a major problem in personnel management.
The situation of ZTE is very similar to that of Huawei. The total scores of the two companies are similar, and the scores of the overseas branches are equally low (for example, the evaluation scores of the two companies in the US branch are both 2.7).
The employees of both companies appreciate the company's reasonable welfare system, and both believe that these two companies can provide valuable work experience for newcomers who are new to the workplace.
Even on the negative sideOn the other hand, the two companies are also surprisingly similar: most employees point the finger at issues such as insufficient local autonomy and cultural conflicts. Reading the evaluation reports of these two companies, wise men will come to this conclusion: Although both ZTE and Huawei are committed to expanding their international business, the two companies obviously have no ambition to create an international corporate culture.
ZTE’s Texas branch became a hub for negative reviews of the company. There, there is a clear cultural conflict between the local American employees and the Chinese headquarters. The reviewer complained that although ZTE has been in the US market for ten years, there are still very few local employees in the branch. Other common problems include language problems, insufficient autonomy, lack of transparency in decision-making, and so on. Not only that, but the branch even has the phenomenon that Chinese employees despise local Americans.
With an overall score of 1.7, LeEco's Glassdoor page is really speechless. The global expansion plan on paper, the ever-increasing cash crisis, and the rapid shrinking of the company's scale all make its employees feel like a needle. Of course, LeEco is not without positive reviews. For example, many reviewers will recognize the company's teamwork working environment, and many people pointed out that working here can effectively improve their Chinese and expression skills. However, the above praise seems to be a drop in the bucket in front of the massive negative reviews.
Interestingly, the negative feedback on LeEco presented on the Glassdoor page is actually not related to the main problems LeEco currently faces, such as excessive and blind expansion and poor financial management; but In terms of scope, the areas covered by the negative reviews can be described as all-round: the black-box operation of the on-boarding process, poor localization operations in overseas markets, excessive preference for Chinese employees, discrimination against foreign employees, poor communication skills, and dirty internal power struggles. , Even including many complaints such as racial discrimination, fraudulent employees, and management corruption.
Final thoughtsBAT is indeed a veritable Big Three among the eight major companies. But the catch is that their overseas branches have low scores. In addition, although problems such as poor administration and abuse of power by managers seem inevitable, thanks to the excellent work of the human resources department, the company attaches great importance to such complaints and is also striving to find solutions to the fundamental problems. The problem of work-life balance is almost a common problem faced by all enterprises. To some extent, this may be an inevitable by-product of the development and transformation of fast-moving Chinese technology companies, but even so, corporate executives still have to think carefully about such issues, how to make employees super long Achieve a significant improvement in work quality during working hours? For many of the companies mentioned above, the cultural conflicts of overseas branches require special attention. (My suggestion is) these companies can set up talent development centers, offer Chinese courses for foreign employees with deep potential, and conduct cultural exchange training sessions at the same time, and provide them with opportunities to meet and communicate with the Chinese leadership to improve mutual exchanges. trust. Among the above-mentioned companies with a high degree of internationalization, Lenovo has done the best in managing its foreign employees. This may benefit from Lenovo's 15-year-old "learned growth" strategy. However, Mr. Yang Yuanqing, the group’s president and CEO, and Ms. Qiao Jian, the senior vice president in charge of human resources, also contributed greatly. They have been actively pursuing open and inclusive management practices. For example, it is stipulated that the proportion of Chinese on the board of directors should not reach 50%, and the position of Chief Diversity Officer (CDO: chief diversity officer) and invested heavily in opening English learning courses and other related cultural education projects for company employees.
Finally, I would like to say that although the author tried my best to ensure a fair and objective attitude when writing this article, there are still some biases in the writing. If you have any questions or disagreements about the views of this article while reading, you can contact the author directly, and I would be happy to discuss it with you.
The author of this article, Elliott Zaagman (Elliott Zaagman) is a trainer and organizational change management consultant, focusing on helping Chinese companies go global. The all-round four-dimensional discussion model he adopted can improve the management model of the company from inside to outside and help the company take an important step towards internationalization as soon as possible. You can contact him via LinkedIn or personal WeChat account: ezaagman.
Source: Tiger Sniff Net
Original title: After reading the evaluations of 8 Chinese companies including BAT, Lenovo, and LeEco on the foreign employer review website, I found these amazing conclusions