Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/100 Best Companies to Work For

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. – Joe (talk) 13:14, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

100 Best Companies to Work For[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Annual list produced by Forbes. Seven of the sources are to Forbes, making them not independent, while the eighth is a passing mention that uses the list to study the performance of companies with better cultures to the market as a whole - in other words, not significant coverage.

A WP:BEFORE search turns up very little; the vast majority is press releases by the companies who receive the awards, while the infrequent independent coverage focuses on individual companies who are placed on this list, rather than the award in general. BilledMammal (talk) 22:58, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 22:58, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:13, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Filbeck, Greg; Preece, Dianna (June–July 2003). "Fortune's Best 100 Companies to Work for in America: Do They Work for Shareholders?". Journal of Business Finance & Accounting. 30 (5–6). Wiley: 771–797. doi:10.1111/1468-5957.05362. Retrieved 2021-09-12.
  The abstract notes: "In this paper we examine the market reaction to the announcement by Fortune of the ‘Best 100 Companies to Work for in America.’ Employees rate firms based on several criteria including trust in management, pride in work/company and camaraderie. To examine long-term performance, we calculate raw and risk-adjusted returns and then compare them to the returns of a matched sample of firms. In addition, we calculate the return on a buy and hold investment in the sample firm less the return on a buy-and-hold investment in a matched sample firm (BHARs). We find a statistically significant positive response to the announcement of the ‘100 best companies to work for’ by Fortune. Also, based on all measures of risk-adjusted return, we find these firms generally outperform the matched sample of companies. The BHAR results, although not exhibiting the level of statistical significance, are consistent with the raw and risk-adjusted return results."
2. Bernardi, Richard A.; Bosco, Susan M.; Vassill, Katie M. (2006-06-01). "Does Female Representation on Boards of Directors Associate With Fortune's "100 Best Companies to Work For" List?". Business & Society. 45 (2). SAGE Publishing: 235–248. doi:10.1177/0007650305283332. Retrieved 2021-09-12.
  The abstract notes: "This study examines the influence of women in business using a sample of firms on Fortune's “100 Best Companies to Work For” list and is an extension of Bernardi et al.'s work. We use the data from Bernardi et al. to determine whether a higher representation of women on a board signals an increased commitment of a firm to a quality environment and employment characteristics necessary to establish the firm on Fortune's “100 Best Companies to Work For” list. Our findings include a significant increase in the number of female directors on Fortune 500 companies between 1977 and 2001. The initial analysis of the 27 firms appearing on both Fortune's “100 Best Companies to Work For” list and the Fortune 500 in 2001 indicates a positive correlation between the number of female directors and a company's appearance on the “100 Best Companies to Work For” list."
3. Dominick, Peter G.; Iordanoglou, Dimitra; Prastacos, Gregory; Reilly, Richard R. (2020-07-02). "Espoused Values of the "Fortune 100 Best Companies to Work For": Essential Themes and Implementation Practices". Journal of Business Ethics. 173. Springer Science+Business Media: 69–88. doi:10.1007/s10551-020-04564-8. Retrieved 2021-09-12.
  The abstract notes: "This study identifes and describes the values espoused by the 62 companies that have consistently (2014–2018) appeared on the “Fortune 100 Best Companies to Work For” (FBCWF) list. We identify 24 separate values and ofer an analysis of the keywords and phrases used to promote them. We confirm that these values fall within the categories of four well-accepted theoretical frameworks of corporate values and culture."
4. Simon, Daniel H.; DeVaro, Jed (December 2006). "Do the best companies to work for provide better customer satisfaction?". Managerial and Decision Economics. 27 (8). Wiley: 667–683. doi:10.1002/mde.1303. Retrieved 2021-09-12.
  The abstract notes: "Using data from both the American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) and Fortune Magazine's lists of Best Companies, we examine the relationship between making the ‘100 Best’ list and customer satisfaction. Based on a subset of the 100 Best in each year from 1994 to 2002, we find strong evidence that firms on the list earn higher customer satisfaction ratings than firms not on the list."
5. Goenner, Cullen F. (2008). "Investing in Fortune's 100 Best Companies to Work for in America". Journal of Economic Insight. 34 (1). Missouri Valley Economic Associatio: 1–19. Retrieved 2021-09-12.
  The abstract notes: "Each year, since 1998, Fortune magazine has published a list of firms deemed the “100 Best Companies to Work for in America” based on their superior employer-employee relations. This relationship represents an intangible asset that may significantly influence future firm performance. We investigate whether investment strategies that invest in the 100 Best are able to outperform the market. The results indicate that portfolios, consisting of firms on the list, offer higher risk adjusted returns than the S&P 500 over the period 1998-2005."
6. Fulmer, Ingrid Smithey; Gerhart, Barry; Scott, Kimberly S. (2006-12-07). "Are the 100 best better? An empirical investigation of the relationship between being a "great place to work" and firm performance". Personnel Psychology. 56 (4). Wiley: 965–993. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2003.tb00246.x. Retrieved 2021-09-12.
  The abstract notes: "We then empirically investigate whether positive employee relations is related to firm performance, focusing on publicly traded firms included in the “100 Best Companies to Work for in America.” The relative performance of these “Best Companies” is examined via comparisons to both companies in the broad market and a group of matched firms. Our analyses suggest that companies on the 100 Best list enjoy not only stable and highly positive workforce attitudes, but also performance advantages over the broad market, and in some cases, over the matched group."
7. Romero, Eric J. (2004-05-01). "Are the Great Places to Work Also Great Performers?". Academy of Management Perspectives. 18 (2). Academy of Management. doi:10.5465/ame.2004.13835923. Retrieved 2021-09-12.
  The abstract notes: "The article discusses research pertaining to the actual performance of the 1998 “100 Best Companies to Work for in America,” as listed by the periodical “Fortune.” The researchers used both stock market data and accounting data to assess firm performance. The study revealed that positive employee relations were beneficial for companies and may be related to overall improved performance. The research indicates that the time and money spent to create and support positive employee relations are a worthwhile investment."
8. Bhaskaran, Rajesh Kumar; Ting, Irene Wei Kiong; Azizan, Noor Azlinna; Yelubolu, Kranthi Vidhatha (2020-11-28). "Determinants and market performance of Fortune 100 best companies: evidence from Islamic perspective". Journal of Islamic Accounting and Business Research. 12 (1). Emerald Group Publishing: 44–59. doi:10.1108/JIABR-12-2019-0248. ISSN 1759-0817. Retrieved 2021-09-12.
  The abstract notes: "Islam is valid for every place and time, and it promotes fair and equitable employees’ relations as an essential corporate social responsibility (CSR) policy for successful organisations such as Fortune 100 companies. Whence, this study aims to explore Fortune 100 best companies exhibit better market performance and capitalisation relative to other companies in relation to their employees’ satisfaction as a significant contributor to better performance."
9. Joyce, Kevin E. (March–April 2003). "Lessons for employers from Fortune's "100 best"". Business Horizons. 46 (2): 77–84. doi:10.1016/S0007-6813(03)00013-2. Retrieved 2021-09-12.
  The abstract notes: "Fortune's '100 Best Companies to Work For,' which are both superlative workplaces and superior performers, have some important lessons to teach. A content analysis of the websites of these firms and a comparison group suggests 3 lessons: 1. The 100 Best are distinguished by employee development programs, diversity initiatives, and a fun work environment. 2. They use their websites to tell the world about themselves. 3. They take advantage of the BRS cycle: Behavior creates the desirable workplace, which leads to public recognition, which leads to a company's public signaling about its work environment - which in turn leads back to behavior which creates the desirable workplace."
10. Swanson, Douglas J. (2004). "Narratives of Job Satisfaction on the World Wide Web: Interpretations of Value and Reward Within the "100 Best Companies to Work for in America"". Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication. Retrieved 2021-09-12 – via Bepress. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  The abstract notes: "This research analyzed employee job satisfaction narratives on World Wide Web sites of companies named among Fortune magazine’s “100 Best Companies to Work for in America.” Fewer than one-third of WWW sites included narratives. Narratives were most likely to express job satisfaction in personal, emotional terms and least likely to identify job security, benefits, or compensation as important rewards of work. Narratives often appeared targeted toward new college graduates. Clichés were used excessively in Web sites and narratives."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow 100 Best Companies to Work For to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 05:30, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I came across a few of those, and there was a similar one used as a source. What I found though was that the list is effectively being used as a data source, and is not itself the subject of coverage. For instance, Dominick et al. 2020 is an analysis of organizational values, and to help them generate their data source they use the discussed list, with the list receiving no significant coverage. Indeed, the list itself is only mentioned three times in the entire paper; once in the title, once in the abstract and once in the introduction.

I will admit that the shear quantity you foundgives me pause, but there are a lot of datasets out there that are used in multiple published works and we don't consider them notable as the use of a data set is not significant coverage of said dataset. BilledMammal (talk) 06:46, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that the list "is not itself the subject of coverage". Here are quotes from the first three sources I listed showing the "list is itself the subject of coverage":
1. Filbeck, Greg; Preece, Dianna (June–July 2003). "Fortune's Best 100 Companies to Work for in America: Do They Work for Shareholders?". Journal of Business Finance & Accounting. 30 (5–6). Wiley: 771–797. doi:10.1111/1468-5957.05362. Retrieved 2021-09-12.
  The article notes: "Fortune first started ranking businesses in 1983 with their ‘Most Admired Companies’ list. They ranked both the ‘most admired’ firms and the ‘least admired’ firms in an annual survey. In 1997 they created the first ever list of the ‘World’s Most Admired Companies.’ Finally, with the increasing interest in worker satisfaction in the face of a tight US labor market in the late 1990s, Fortune created the annual ‘100 Best Companies to Work For in America’ award in the January 12, 1998 issue (Levering and Moskowitz, 1998, pp. 84–95).
  The article notes: "We first describe in more detail the Fortune award followed by a discussion of the relevant literature."
  The article further notes: "The ‘100 Best Companies to Work For In America’ list is significantly different from other awards in that the authors, Robert Levering and Milton Moskowitz, survey employees rather than ‘experts’ and company executives. For example, Fortune surveys a traditional group of analysts, fund managers and executives in compiling their ‘Most Admired Firms’ list. [Discussion about another award from the Working Mother magazine] ... In surveying employees directly, Levering and Moskowitz avoid problems of misreporting and exaggeration by firms."
  The article further notes: "In the initial survey of the ‘100 Best Companies to Work For in America,’ Levering and Moskowitz selected 238 companies from a database of more than 1,000 firms that they considered most viable for the award. Companies must be at least ten years old and have a minimum of 500 employees. One hundred and sixty one firms agreed to participate out of the 238 identified companies. The 161 candidate companies were asked to randomly select 225 employees to receive the Great Place to Work Trust Index. [121 more words about the methodology.]"
2. Filbeck, Greg; Preece, Dianna (June–July 2003). "Fortune's Best 100 Companies to Work for in America: Do They Work for Shareholders?". Journal of Business Finance & Accounting. 30 (5–6). Wiley: 771–797. doi:10.1111/1468-5957.05362. Retrieved 2021-09-12.
  The article notes: "The research examines whether Fortune’s “100 Best Companies to Work For” have a higher percentage of women on their boards of directors. Fortune and the Great Place to Work Institute have been tracking great employers since 1981. To be eligible, a company must be a least 10 years old and have a minimum of 500 employees. Each candidate company is given 225 Great Place to Work Trust Index surveys to distribute to randomly selected employees that evaluate trust in management, pride in work and company, and camaraderie. The companies were rated on a 175-point scale, using the measurements such as the overall score on the employee survey and an evaluation of the additional handwritten comments from the employees."
3. Dominick, Peter G.; Iordanoglou, Dimitra; Prastacos, Gregory; Reilly, Richard R. (2020-07-02). "Espoused Values of the "Fortune 100 Best Companies to Work For": Essential Themes and Implementation Practices". Journal of Business Ethics. 173. Springer Science+Business Media: 69–88. doi:10.1007/s10551-020-04564-8. Retrieved 2021-09-12.
  "FBCWF" stands for "Fortune 100 Best Companies to Work For". The article notes: "The FBCWF list is based on the framework used by the Great Place to Work® Institute to characterize what they consider a best workplace. Factors deemed important include high levels of trust, credible and respectful leadership, pride in the work, and camaraderie. For the United States, the Institute establishes a list of the “100 Best Companies to Work For®”. Since January 1998, the list has been featured in Fortune magazine, but the publication is not involved in the evaluation process. To be considered for the list, a company has to register with the Great Place to Work® Institute, have more than 1,000 employees and have operated in the US for longer than 7 years. They must also meet an initial certifcation standard, defned as an average employee agreement rate of 65% or more across all of the items on the Trust Index© Employee Survey (TIES), one of the two measures used to determine who makes the list each year (Great Place to Work® n.d.). The other measure is the Culture Audit assessment. Approximately 400 companies complete the full application process every year (Giuso et al. 2013). [several more paragraphs]"
Cunard (talk) 08:44, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunard.4meter4 (talk) 21:18, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.