We've spent our week of introspection asking hard questions of ourselves and each other. We're ready to share what we've learned.Links Referenced in the Vide...
If I had to guess, I’d say the turnover stats only count full employees, and are therefore a reflection of their “trial period” hiring policy more than anything else. They avoid needing to officially “fire” people they don’t like, and anyone who isn’t comfortable with the culture can leave without needing to “resign”.
On top of that, LTT holds “dream job” status in many people’s minds, so a lower-than-average turnover is expected, and it’s impossible to distinguish that effect from the working conditions.
I’m not saying it’s necessarily a bad place to work, I’m just saying the stats they gave are inconclusive.
If I had to guess, I’d say the turnover stats only count full employees, and are therefore a reflection of their “trial period” hiring policy more than anything else.
If they were deliberately manipulating the stats, that would come out quickly with the level of scrutiny they’re facing right now. Also, wholeheartedly agree with a trial period. They’re good for the company obviously for lots of reasons, but a less obvious one is rooting out cultural fits and problem people like this. Also, I think this is better for the employee as well - it’s much better for mental health to have a clean break than it is to spend the next 6 months going through “performance improvement plans” and such.
Never said the trial period was bad, nor that they were “manipulating” the figures per se (including temp employees in the stats wouldn’t make sense at all). It just makes comparing against the national average a little silly.
If I had to guess, I’d say the turnover stats only count full employees, and are therefore a reflection of their “trial period” hiring policy more than anything else. They avoid needing to officially “fire” people they don’t like, and anyone who isn’t comfortable with the culture can leave without needing to “resign”.
On top of that, LTT holds “dream job” status in many people’s minds, so a lower-than-average turnover is expected, and it’s impossible to distinguish that effect from the working conditions.
I’m not saying it’s necessarily a bad place to work, I’m just saying the stats they gave are inconclusive.
If they were deliberately manipulating the stats, that would come out quickly with the level of scrutiny they’re facing right now. Also, wholeheartedly agree with a trial period. They’re good for the company obviously for lots of reasons, but a less obvious one is rooting out cultural fits and problem people like this. Also, I think this is better for the employee as well - it’s much better for mental health to have a clean break than it is to spend the next 6 months going through “performance improvement plans” and such.
Never said the trial period was bad, nor that they were “manipulating” the figures per se (including temp employees in the stats wouldn’t make sense at all). It just makes comparing against the national average a little silly.