¶ … Fortune Magazine every year publishes its list of the Top 100 companies to work for. There are a number of different factors that go into their survey, including things like benefits, employee loyalty and any unusual things that these companies do or provide for their employees. Each situation is different. In some industries, a great working environment is considered to be the norm and just to compete a company has to be good. In other industries, companies seek to use their working environment as a source of competitive advantage. There are as many different approaches to being one of the top companies to work for as there are companies on the list. Some companies want to attract the best people in their industries, who are among the most talented in the world. Other companies seek to foster loyalty because they see relationships and institutional knowledge as keys to their success. That there are so many different approaches matters for job seekers. What one job seeker sees as attractive company to work for, another job seeker might not find attractive at all. What appeals to a twenty-something engineer may be completely different from what appeals to a middle-aged low-skill worker. But companies that excel at meeting the needs of whatever their target worker is are the ones that are celebrated by Fortune in this survey. Methodology

To understand what makes a company a great one to work for means to understand the methodology by which Fortune compiled its list. Two-thirds of a company's score is derived from the Trust Index Employee Survey, which surveys employees of each company that is being considered for the list. There are several categories of questions, ranging from management's credibility, overall job satisfaction and camaraderie. The other one-third of the score derives from the Culture Audit, which has questions about pay and benefits, hiring practices, methods of internal communication, recognition programs and diversity efforts (Fortune, 2015).

Discussion of Findings

The filter through which I wanted to examine this is the family filter. For me, I wanted to explore what a person with a young family would appreciate. This is also, arguably, a diversity issue as well. Females often end up suffering career setbacks if they want to take time off for family, because a full-time job would be too much burden to juggle. Telecommuting is a form of gender empowerment allowing women -- and men, too, if they want -- to maintain their careers while raising a family more easily (Smithson & Stokoe, 2005).. I am also of the view that companies that truly want to harness the best talent in their industries need to take steps to ensure that the best talent wants to work for them, and can do so. Companies that ensure employees can get the right balance of family and work are in a great position to attract and retain better talent, and in the long run should enjoy more success (Dreher, 2003). I want to work for a winner and I think this is one of the things that goes into making a company a winner.

There are several things that I feel matter. First, telecommuting is something that matters, because it allows people to work from home. Telecommuters have more family time because they spend less time on the road, and they have more freedom over their schedules as well. Studies show that work-life balance is better when telecommuting is an option (Hill et al., 1998) Furthermore, telecommuting means that you spend less time in traffic, which is basically wasted time. Telecommuters also have lower car expenses -- sometimes fewer vehicles but even if not there should be savings on fuel and insurance, money that can be put back into making the family's lives better. A lot of jobs are mostly phone and computer based, with communications being on e-mail, phone or text, so for a lot of jobs it seems that telecommuting just makes sense.

Another factor that I wanted to study with respect to family was onsite childcare. If you must go into the office, a company that allows for childcare is also a company that allows people to have their career continue without disruption. Not only is the right spirit and attitude that I think a company should have, but again this is good business. Anything that promotes shattering barriers, and allowing the best people to flourish and not be punished for having families is associated with the sort of business that I want to work for.

When you filter out the companies that do not offer the benefits you look for, some trends emerge. First, the number one company, Google, is no longer on the list. Gone as well is the number two company Boston Consulting Group, and number three Acuity. In terms of companies that are family-friendly, it looks like the best company is #4 overall SAS Institute. Many of...

The other leaders are Genentech, Quicken Loans, Baptist Health South Florida, Plante & Moran and St. Jude's Children's Research Hospital. Note the absence of technology companies on this list -- that industry caters to a predominantly young, male demographic. The perks and working conditions that tech companies offer are definitely geared more to that demographic, and not towards families.
It is also worth noting a common thread with most of the companies that offer telecommuting and onsite child care. These are not usually publicly-traded companies. Genentech is, but SAS Institute and Quicken Loans are privately-held, and the hospitals are non-profit. Of the publicly-traded companies to offer these perks are Aflac, Allianz Life, Cisco, General Mills, Publix and Capital One. Presumably Publix only offers onsite child care and telecommuting for its head office employees -- grocery store employees do not usually receive these perks. This raises an interesting question -- are family-friendly human resources policies incompatible with a company being publicly-traded? There are many companies that have these policies, but they are not companies pursuing quarterly earnings, so perhaps the family-friendly view is the long view. That makes sense in a way, because family-friendly policies specifically seem to keep quality young (ish) talent within the organization. Companies that want to do that are companies that want to build a long-term relationship with their employees that continues throughout their working lives. That is apparently a much different approach than publicly-traded companies take, unless they are in some sort of financial services business. There is evidence that suggests high performance management and work-life balance are not compatible (White et al., 2003).

Cisco is apparently an outsider in Silicon Valley. It makes me wonder why. Perhaps this is one company that wants to skim veteran talent away from companies that are otherwise full of younger workers. Once you prove your stripes, Cisco wants you, and for the long run. That is the sort of message that they send, bucking the tech industry trend. It gets my attention, because I like the idea of the perks of working in the tech business, there's nothing wrong with living in California if you make enough money, but very few companies are offering the things that might appeal to people who are entering the family stage of their lives. That Cisco does I think allows them to attract talented people who are looking for something different in a company from what the other big tech firms are offering.

To work on the west coast, and be in a family-friendly environment, seems more challenging that one might think. There is Cisco, and there is Genentech but the other leaders in the family-friendly category are in the Midwest, or Florida, with a couple in the Northeast. In general, for as popular as the big companies on the Pacific coast are, most of them do not have much in the way of family-friendly policies. This is too bad, because I also place emphasis on the working environment and in particular on the corporate culture. The Fortune article is interesting because it does seem to lay out a stark contrast between organizational culture and family -- the companies that seek to be fun and hard-driving may offer a great work environment, but do little for family. Companies in more conservative industries like financial services and health care, or ones that are located in the Midwest in particular, have the most family-friendly policies. This points to differences in the way that the work-life relationship is perceived in different industries, but also in different parts of the country. Trying to find a genuinely dynamic work environment and have a healthy work-life balance might require some trade-offs.

With just two companies that really fit the criteria (Genentech and Cisco) it is relatively easy to compare some of their stats. The following table covers the key issues:

Cisco

Genentech

Salary

$138,350

$123,000

Bonuses

$22,447

$65,000

Stock Options

n/a

N/a

Retirement

n/a

N/a

Healthcare

n/a

n/a

Holidays

9

13

Sick Days

n/a

Unlimited

Vacations

30

18

Unfortunately the Fortune analysis is a bit thin, and does not discuss the retirement and health plans of these companies. This is too bad, because this is important information for a lot of people. Offering these things would definitely fit with a…