My only concern with Glassdoor is that their review removal policy is unclear. They have removed mine and my friend's reviews of a nonprofit we worked for. The reviews were nonoffensive, but they were negative, as the experience working for the org was quite bad, and equally, the org was not creating any significant impact. So both things combined made it not a very friendly workspace.

It's not clear to me why the reviews were removed, but I spotted that there is an option to report a review. So I wonder if an org can also game the system by encouraging multiple people to report negative reviews.

I also worry that people with negative experiences are more inclined to leave reviews. So, e.g. an org can have one negative review and zero positive because satisfied employees didn't feel motivated to post (didn't have the urgency to warn others).

So I wonder if there is a healthy way to encourage reviews in general. Probably this post is one since it does not come directly from an employer.

I agree with the rule that this kind of reviews would be beneficial. If I had read my former employer's reviews now, I would not have gone to work with them (I would avoid months of ineffective work in hostile conditions and burnout). Thanks to the org having a sufficient number of reviews on Glassdor now, you can see the inefficiencies at work mentioned, the lack of impact-focus, and not great treatment of employees, which would be a significant warning for me.

Again, positive reviews, talking about hard work, impact focus, kind colleagues (that, at the moment, I would leave for CE if I was leaving the org) would probably encourage me to apply because I care for impact but I also care about working with intelligent and kind people in an ambitious, startup work environment. 

Out of curiosity, I looked up a list of EA-related organizations and checked their Glassdoor reviews:

Infrastructure

Animal Charity Evaluators (ACE)- 2.6 (2 reviews)

Charity Entrepreneurship- 5.0 (1 reviews )

 Centre for Effective Altruism (CEA)- 4.1 (10 reviews)

Founders Pledge- 4.8 (8 reviews)

GiveWell- 4.5 (6 reviews)

Open Philanthropy Project- 5.0 ( 3 reviews)

Rethink Charity- 5.0 (1 review) 

The Life You Can Save (TLYCS)- 4.6 (3 reviews) 

Animal Advocacy

Albert Schweitzer Foundation- 4.0 ( 1 review) 

Anima International- 4.0 ( 1 review)

Faunalytics- 5.0 (1 review)

The Good Food Institute- 4.9 (41 reviews)

The Humane League- 4.0 (35 reviews)

Wild Animal Initiative- 5.0 (1 review)

Global Health and Poverty

Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab (J-PAL)- 4.1 (206 reviews)

END Fund (deworming programme)- 2.3 (8 reviews)

Evidence Action (Deworm the World Initiative programme)- 3.9 (84 reviews)

GiveDirectly- 4.5(57 reviews)

Helen Keller International (Vitamin A supplementation programme) - 3.8 (71 reviews)

IDInsight- 4.2 (78 reviews)

Innovations for Poverty Action (IPA)- 3.9 (228 reviews)

Malaria Consortium- 4.1 (36 reviews)

New Incentives- 4.1 (3 reviews)

Sightsavers (deworming programme)- 4.7 (89 reviews)

Suvita- 3.1 (2 reviews)

Far Future

Machine Intelligence Research Institute (MIRI)- 4.6 (2 reviews)

________________________________________
No reviews: 

Infrastructure

80,000 Hours 

Animal Advocacy Careers 

Ayuda Efectiva

Doebem 

Donational 

Effective Altruism Foundation (EAF) 

Effective Giving UK/Netherlands 

Effektiv-Spenden.org

Generation Pledge

GiEffektivt.No 

Giving Multiplier.org-

Giving What We Can (GWWC) 

Global Priorities Institute (GPI) 

High Impact Athletes

Let's Fund 

One for the World

Raising for Effective Giving (REG) 

Rethink Priorities

SoGive 

Animal Advocacy

Animal Ask 

Animal Ethics 

Aquatic Life Institute 

Credence Institute

Farmed Animal Funders

Fish Welfare Initiative 

Global Health and Poverty 

Against Malaria Foundation (AMF) 

Canopie 

Family Empowerment Media (FEM) 

Fortify Health 

Happier Lives Institute (HLI) 

Lead Exposure Elimination Project (LEEP) 

Policy Entrepreneurship Network 

SCI Foundation 

Far Future 

Alliance to Feed the Earth in Disasters (ALLFED) 

All-Party Parliamentary Group for Future Generations 

Alpenglow 

Berkeley Existential Risk Initiative (BERI)

Centre for Human-Compatible AI (CHAI) 

Centre on Long-term Risk (CLR)

Centre for the Study of Existential Risks (CSER) 

Future of Humanity Institute (FHI)

Future of Life Institute (FLI)

Global Catastrophic Risk Institute (GCRI)

Leverhulme Centre for the Future of Intelligence (CFI)

Projekt Framtid 

Sentience Institute 

The Centre for Election Science (CES) 

The Forethought Foundation for Global Priorities Research 

Other

Centre for Applied Rationality (CFAR) 

Centre for Enabling EA Learning and Research (CEEALAR) 

Giving Green 

High Impact Careers in Government (HIPE) 

Organisation for the Prevention of Intense Suffering (OPIS) 

Our World in Data 

Qualia Research Institute (QRI) 

Sentience Politics 

SparkWave 

The Legal Priorities Project 

WANBAM

Nice solution.

In a similar vein, I'd like to see more people asking "Can anyone DM me a quick review of [EA org] as a place to work / service provider?"

Thanks for sharing! This strikes me as a good idea. 

I am considering applying to a few organisations. I hadn't realised that there is a better way to get information about working at them than by talking to former or current employees. 

Reading reviews would be much more efficient. I wonder if having a link directory of all reviews (of working at) EA organisation is a worthwhile small project for someone - maybe it could be in the wiki.

Maybe worth having people at the organisation who are happy to chat about their role listed also (related to Holly's point below).

I think an ideal social norm would be only reviewing an organization after you are no longer working with them and thus can review the full experience.

This implies that a nontrivial fraction of employees would leave, which seems true of some EA orgs and not others (and I think the difference is non-random for pretty obvious reasons).

Thank you for highlighting the potential benefits of utilizing review services like Glass Door within the Effective Altruism (EA) movement. The points you raise regarding matching, accountability, hidden factors, and knowledge gaps are indeed significant. By providing detailed reviews of EA organizations, individuals can make more informed decisions about their career choices, leading to better workplace matches and potentially reducing turnover and frustration.

While there are some valid concerns, such as the possibility of gaming the system and the risk of organizations prioritizing employee satisfaction over impact, I believe that encouraging reviewers to consider both aspects can help maintain a balance. Reviews that encompass a holistic perspective, including benefits and organizational self-criticism, can provide valuable insights for potential employees.

Regarding reputational damage to the EA movement, it is unlikely that reviews of EA organizations on Glassdoor would have a negative impact. Glassdoor is widely used across various industries, and leveraging this platform can actually help identify and address poor organizational behaviors earlier, ultimately benefiting the movement as a whole.