Are hires through connections beneficial for the employer and other employees?

[deleted820760]

I’m curious about the opinion and experience of seasoned hospital pharmacists/managers. Were the people that were hired due to connections better employees/pharmacists than ones with no connections?

I used to think hiring someone that a great pharmacist recommends or vouches for makes the most sense in ensuring a great hire. However, in most case that I know of, it turned out to be the complete opposite. The people who got hired with no connections were more likely to be great pharmacists with great work ethic, than the ones who got hired due to connections. I actually can’t even think of one instance in which a hire with connections ended up being good.

One of the most bizarre and confusing examples was an excellent clinical specialist who recommended a friend. The clinical specialist was an ideal employee. Extremely intelligent, great people skills, excellent work ethic, great team player, not condescending, didn’t act like she was too good for certain tasks, etc. This friend she recommended said she was her best friend. She was the worst! Nobody liked her because she had the worst qualities. She did a PGY1, but she didn’t know anything, she was lazy, unprofessional, lacked social skills, pissed off the techs and other pharmacists, acted like she was too good for the job because she was residency trained, etc. This resulted in other employees being highly annoyed and even pissed at the clinical specialist for making them be stuck with that girl.

I‘ve known of so many more instances like that. I wonder if the people recommending people they know really think those people are wonderful because they are not able to be objective, or if they feel a sense of obligation to help their friends/coworkers/classmates, and can’t say no.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[confettiflyer]

Anecdotally, they are better in that their expectations were managed prior to being hired. Clinically, they’re all the same in terms of competence. We find that the people referring candidates do so in a two-way fashion, that is, they also sell the site to the candidate.

We do our due diligence as well, but personality and fit are hard to ascertain in a limited interview environment.

Plus, most of the referred candidates know more than 1 pharmacist/technician on staff, so it’s rare to bring in an individual that only knows one.

This is the same for our technicians as well.

 

[deleted820760]

Anecdotally, they are better in that their expectations were managed prior to being hired. Clinically, they’re all the same in terms of competence. We find that the people referring candidates do so in a two-way fashion, that is, they also sell the site to the candidate.

We do our due diligence as well, but personality and fit are hard to ascertain in a limited interview environment.

Plus, most of the referred candidates know more than 1 pharmacist/technician on staff, so it’s rare to bring in an individual that only knows one.

This is the same for our technicians as well.

I’m happy to hear that this has been your experience. That’s what I would have thought would be the case had I not personally seen so many instances to the contrary, with both technicians and pharmacists. Your experience must be the norm though, otherwise, people wouldn’t continue hiring based on referrals.

 

[deleted820760]

I wonder what I would do if a friend or acquaintance asked me to refer them, but knowing them, they wouldn’t be a good fit or they really are not as qualified as others who may be applying. That would be such an awkward situation. If I say no, they’re going to be upset and hurt. If I say yes, and they end up being a bad hire, people will lose respect for me and my input. What would you guys do in such a situation?

I value assertiveness and honesty, but it seems like a lot of people would rather hear something nice instead of the truth. Being honest and assertive would ruin some relationships. It’s kind of strange that we, as a society, say we value honesty, but to be successful, we usually have to be political and dishonest.

 

[johnpharm01]

The benefit of hiring someone who is referred by current employees is that they are more "known" then people without connections to your organization.

 

[owlegrad]

I wonder what I would do if a friend or acquaintance asked me to refer them, but knowing them, they wouldn’t be a good fit or they really are not as qualified as others who may be applying. That would be such an awkward situation. If I say no, they’re going to be upset and hurt. If I say yes, and they end up being a bad hire, people will lose respect for me and my input. What would you guys do in such a situation?

I value assertiveness and honesty, but it seems like a lot of people would rather hear something nice instead of the truth. Being honest and assertive would ruin some relationships. It’s kind of strange that we, as a society, say we value honesty, but to be successful, we usually have to be political and dishonest.

Personally I would tell my friend a version of the truth. That I don't think they are a good fit for the position (or that the position isn't a good fit for them) and that my reference likely wouldn't help them get the job. No need to be rude or go into details why.

 

[lord999]

In the upper civil service, yes, and in many cases, it's essential and an understood unwritten requirement that you get a personal recommendation and preferably more than one. For places where career tenure is permanent, the ones that I've hired through the "network" have been always superior to the open hires as cultural fit and trust in doing both on-record and off-record requirements without serious issues is desired. But the definition of what constitutes a network is different. It's really not pharmacy school or frat, but usually residency or fellowship directors you knew in terms of pharmacists as well as colleagues. Someone who went through ILE or Carlisle where I know the academicians there works for the other hires. But that's an expectation around here rather than an open hire area.

I don't have any problem bluntly telling someone they aren't qualified or suited for a position or telling a hiring manager that this would be a bad hire which paradoxically makes me a usual person to ask about these matters. I have examples of this, but they are all depressing (like finding an OCD person a job that plays off their compulsion as a Chief of Staff over requirements or recommending a manager to hire a known overt sociopath to a department that was "surplus to requirements" in government speak to constructively terminate the staff without having to pay RIF). Because it is my belief that an employee hire is not solely on their strengths but on their compatible weaknesses. If a pharmacist does not have at least a little compulsive OCD in them, I consider it a negative in functions that require verification and consider that in admission decisions.

 

[TateThePharmacist]

Never been on the hiring end of this, however I've seen it go both ways in terms of workers being a good or bad fit after an employee recommendation.
OP's original example is exactly why I don't give out many recommendations. It reflects very poorly on me if the person I recommended is a bad worker/not a good fit. I've had several family/friends that I easily could have given a good recommendation for and gotten them the job they wanted/advanced their careers. However I didn't feel that they were the right person for the position, so I wasn't going to stick my neck out for them to have it come back and bite me in the @!$.

 

[Sine Cura]

One of the most bizarre and confusing examples was an excellent clinical specialist who recommended a friend. The clinical specialist was an ideal employee. Extremely intelligent, great people skills, excellent work ethic, great team player, not condescending, didn’t act like she was too good for certain tasks, etc. This friend she recommended said she was her best friend. She was the worst!

Any recommendation from someone who did not actually work with this "recomendee" is worth less than nothing.

A recommendation is just a tool anyway. Someone who is utter **** in retail might pan out not in retail (or just go work at a slow store like slugs tend to be shunted off to)

 

[casprph]

I wonder what I would do if a friend or acquaintance asked me to refer them, but knowing them, they wouldn’t be a good fit or they really are not as qualified as others who may be applying. That would be such an awkward situation. If I say no, they’re going to be upset and hurt. If I say yes, and they end up being a bad hire, people will lose respect for me and my input. What would you guys do in such a situation?

I value assertiveness and honesty, but it seems like a lot of people would rather hear something nice instead of the truth. Being honest and assertive would ruin some relationships. It’s kind of strange that we, as a society, say we value honesty, but to be successful, we usually have to be political and dishonest.

I have recommended friends which I did not think qualified or have no experience working with but I inform my director of my actual knowledge about their character and let the hiring manager make the decision on fit and ability and inform said friend that you can only get them to the interview and it is up to them to land the job. If they don’t, you don’t get held liable

 

[Marzapan]

When hiring a candidate, what organizations want is to minimize the amount of risk they take. This is why most organizations would overwhelmingly prefer to promote/backfill from within versus hiring externally, because the candidate is already a known quantity. If they are forced to hire externally for whatever reason, then those with solid recommendations are preferred over unknowns, not because their prowess/ability can be "more" validated than others, but because the more a company knows about you the less risk you will potentially carry to them. I'd very much prefer to hire someone who I know has particular weaknesses versus hiring an unknown with a stellar CV, because with the known candidate there will be no surprises as to what I will get, whereas you cannot predict what you will get with an unknown.

Case in point: my department recently hired an unknown, who didn't even last 2 weeks. He was introduced one week and bounced to a competitor by the next. Suffice it to say he's never going to be allowed back...

 

[TheBlaah]

One of the most bizarre and confusing examples was an excellent clinical specialist who recommended a friend. The clinical specialist was an ideal employee. Extremely intelligent, great people skills, excellent work ethic, great team player, not condescending, didn’t act like she was too good for certain tasks, etc. This friend she recommended said she was her best friend. She was the worst! Nobody liked her because she had the worst qualities. She did a PGY1, but she didn’t know anything, she was lazy, unprofessional, lacked social skills, pissed off the techs and other pharmacists, acted like she was too good for the job because she was residency trained, etc. This resulted in other employees being highly annoyed and even pissed at the clinical specialist for making them be stuck with that girl.

I actually find this example to make sense. The specialist seems like the type of person who is very accommodating and sees the best in people. It makes them blind to the weaknesses and faults in others. Furthermore, even if they do realize it, they often have trouble addressing it with them. This is particularly true if they're friends.

While it's great to work with someone who's so positive, I find that someone who can be "negative" when necessary to be much more effective in managerial positions.

 

[deleted820760]

When hiring a candidate, what organizations want is to minimize the amount of risk they take. This is why most organizations would overwhelmingly prefer to promote/backfill from within versus hiring externally, because the candidate is already a known quantity. If they are forced to hire externally for whatever reason, then those with solid recommendations are preferred over unknowns, not because their prowess/ability can be "more" validated than others, but because the more a company knows about you the less risk you will potentially carry to them. I'd very much prefer to hire someone who I know has particular weaknesses versus hiring an unknown with a stellar CV, because with the known candidate there will be no surprises as to what I will get, whereas you cannot predict what you will get with an unknown.

Case in point: my department recently hired an unknown, who didn't even last 2 weeks. He was introduced one week and bounced to a competitor by the next. Suffice it to say he's never going to be allowed back...

While I understand that organizations want to minimize risk, I'm not convinced that hiring based on referrals actually does that (maybe it gives the illusion that it does), and I'm not even sure if minimizing risk should be the top priority in a hiring decision. Great risk can lead to great reward. The easiest path is not always the best. The priority should be hiring the best person for the job, and, yes, that includes assessing personality fit. There are pros and cons to everything. If people keep getting hired through referrals, people form clicks, there's not as much diversity of experience if they come from the same background, the loss in creativity, increased drama... These are just some of the issues that come to mind.

I worked someplace where a good portion of the pharmacists were married to each other. There was another pharmacist who tried to get her son hired there who was a recent grad with no hospital experience. Another one who was residency trained tried to get her new grad boyfriend hired on, again with no hospital experience. This is recently, when there are so many qualified experienced and residency-trained pharmacists who applied. There was constant drama at that place.

It would be better if people got jobs based on merit, qualifications, experience, fit, and not who they know. I also wonder why more companies don't take advantage of the 90 day probation period. Yes, it can be inconvenient and expensive to get rid of people, but if someone is not a good fit and it's obvious from the beginning, it's better for the organization to cut their losses and get rid of that person before they end up being stuck with them.

 

[deleted820760]

I actually find this example to make sense. The specialist seems like the type of person who is very accommodating and sees the best in people. It makes them blind to the weaknesses and faults in others. Furthermore, even if they do realize it, they often have trouble addressing it with them. This is particularly true if they're friends.

Yes, she was truly one of a kind. She was a genius, well-published, and yet, she was so humble and kind. Even though she is extremely successful, she's not a super competitive person who brings others down to get ahead. It was refreshing to be around her.

I guess we were all confused because we couldn't understand how two people who have very little in common in terms of values, can be such good friends.

 

[confettiflyer]

While I understand that organizations want to minimize risk, I'm not convinced that hiring based on referrals actually does that (maybe it gives the illusion that it does), and I'm not even sure if minimizing risk should be the top priority in a hiring decision. Great risk can lead to great reward. The easiest path is not always the best. The priority should be hiring the best person for the job, and, yes, that includes assessing personality fit. There are pros and cons to everything. If people keep getting hired through referrals, people form clicks, there's not as much diversity of experience if they come from the same background, the loss in creativity, increased drama... These are just some of the issues that come to mind.

I worked someplace where a good portion of the pharmacists were married to each other. There was another pharmacist who tried to get her son hired there who was a recent grad with no hospital experience. Another one who was residency trained tried to get her new grad boyfriend hired on, again with no hospital experience. This is recently, when there are so many qualified experienced and residency-trained pharmacists who applied. There was constant drama at that place.

It would be better if people got jobs based on merit, qualifications, experience, fit, and not who they know. I also wonder why more companies don't take advantage of the 90 day probation period. Yes, it can be inconvenient and expensive to get rid of people, but if someone is not a good fit and it's obvious from the beginning, it's better for the organization to cut their losses and get rid of that person before they end up being stuck with them.

Yeah, the workplace you’re describing is professionally known as “hot mess.”

Personal referrals only work when there exists an independent review and due diligence done by an arms length hiring committee (committee is generous, it’s not that formal at my workplace).

It also only works when it’s a true referral + recommendation, not a lobbying/jockeying attempt with shades of quid pro quo.

 

[Marzapan]

While I understand that organizations want to minimize risk, I'm not convinced that hiring based on referrals actually does that (maybe it gives the illusion that it does), and I'm not even sure if minimizing risk should be the top priority in a hiring decision. Great risk can lead to great reward. The easiest path is not always the best. The priority should be hiring the best person for the job, and, yes, that includes assessing personality fit. There are pros and cons to everything. If people keep getting hired through referrals, people form clicks, there's not as much diversity of experience if they come from the same background, the loss in creativity, increased drama... These are just some of the issues that come to mind.

I worked someplace where a good portion of the pharmacists were married to each other. There was another pharmacist who tried to get her son hired there who was a recent grad with no hospital experience. Another one who was residency trained tried to get her new grad boyfriend hired on, again with no hospital experience. This is recently, when there are so many qualified experienced and residency-trained pharmacists who applied. There was constant drama at that place.

It would be better if people got jobs based on merit, qualifications, experience, fit, and not who they know. I also wonder why more companies don't take advantage of the 90 day probation period. Yes, it can be inconvenient and expensive to get rid of people, but if someone is not a good fit and it's obvious from the beginning, it's better for the organization to cut their losses and get rid of that person before they end up being stuck with them.

Well you'd need to differentiate between different types of recommendations because they're not all viewed the same. I'd say the character/personality type recommendations are usually the most worthless ones that we throw out the window (i.e. she's a nice person, he works hard) because they don't say anything about the candidate, and "personality fit" type assessments are determined through the interview process, not through someone's recommendation. Once in a while you'll get someone with both character and technical references which can give them an advantage, but these types of references are rare because it is very hard to vouch for someone's technical ability unless you were their direct coworker in the past or something like that. Things like "I knew him in pharmacy school as one of the smartest in my class" isn't a valid technical recommendation.

 

[deleted820760]

Yeah, the workplace you’re describing is professionally known as “hot mess.”

It really was. We're not even touching on the issues it causes for minorities, who may not have as many connections, and who are already usually at a disadvantage.

 

[deleted562805]

While I understand that organizations want to minimize risk, I'm not convinced that hiring based on referrals actually does that (maybe it gives the illusion that it does), and I'm not even sure if minimizing risk should be the top priority in a hiring decision. Great risk can lead to great reward. The easiest path is not always the best. The priority should be hiring the best person for the job, and, yes, that includes assessing personality fit. There are pros and cons to everything. If people keep getting hired through referrals, people form clicks, there's not as much diversity of experience if they come from the same background, the loss in creativity, increased drama... These are just some of the issues that come to mind.

I worked someplace where a good portion of the pharmacists were married to each other. There was another pharmacist who tried to get her son hired there who was a recent grad with no hospital experience. Another one who was residency trained tried to get her new grad boyfriend hired on, again with no hospital experience. This is recently, when there are so many qualified experienced and residency-trained pharmacists who applied. There was constant drama at that place.

It would be better if people got jobs based on merit, qualifications, experience, fit, and not who they know. I also wonder why more companies don't take advantage of the 90 day probation period. Yes, it can be inconvenient and expensive to get rid of people, but if someone is not a good fit and it's obvious from the beginning, it's better for the organization to cut their losses and get rid of that person before they end up being stuck with them.

In other industries like medicine and tech, they hire based how good and efficient you are at your career. Knowing people is good, but it is not end be all like pharmacy.

 

[deleted820760]

In other industries like medicine and tech, they hire based how good and efficient you are at your career. Knowing people is good, but it is not end be all like pharmacy.

This! This is how it should be. I heard connections is important in tech, too, but for programming jobs, they have technical interviews where they have you do some coding or solve some problem. I heard it's hard. If you don't pass that, you don't move to the next phase of the interview, regardless of who you know.

 

[confettiflyer]

It really was. We're not even touching on the issues it causes for minorities, who may not have as many connections, and who are already usually at a disadvantage.

I’ve seen it, my ex used to work at a big hospital in LA (not pharmacy, another allied health field) and she was routinely blocked from expanded opportunities/excluded for racial reasons.

She’s Chinese, the group in charge was another group of Asians that were not Chinese. It was really bad to the point of depression, in addition to the economic damage.

The systems there were not really good addressing these types of issues between these subdivided racial groups. Toxic.

 

[ValeRx]

I am fully aware that I got my job because of current employee referral. However, being the type of person that I am, I do my utmost to make sure that the person referring me still maintains the integrity of their word. They put their neck out on the line for me and I am not going to let them look bad. I realize I was lucky and I refuse to let them down. I don't want to be that, "Well I recommended that person once and look how that turned out"... in a negative way. I want it to be in a positive way.

 

[ValeRx]

and she was routinely blocked from expanded opportunities/excluded for racial reasons.

Do you have actual proof of this, or is it just perceived/anecdotal?

 

[deleted820760]

I’ve seen it, my ex used to work at a big hospital in LA (not pharmacy, another allied health field) and she was routinely blocked from expanded opportunities/excluded for racial reasons.

She’s Chinese, the group in charge was another group of Asians that were not Chinese. It was really bad to the point of depression, in addition to the economic damage.

The systems there were not really good addressing these types of issues between these subdivided racial groups. Toxic.

So unfortunate. She probably had a lot to offer. These workplaces either don’t realize or don’t care that when they don’t have their **** together and allow these toxic environments, it really does affect their bottom line. They lose good talent, and probably have high turnover, among other problems.

 

[deleted820760]

Do you have actual proof of this, or is it just perceived/anecdotal?

I’ve seen it before, too. Not with a Chinese employee, but definitely with a black pharmacist. At this huge hospital with dozens of pharmacists, they would rudely invite everyone to happy hour except the pharmacist who was black. They would also dump work on her, and do other things to sabotage her, and set her up for failure. She was the sweetest person and a good pharmacist, so it couldn’t have been due to personality or work issues. It’s annoying when people act like racism isn’t real.

Comments like yours rub me the wrong way. People are tired of constantly trying to prove that they experience racism and discrimination, when the proof is there for anyone who is willing to look objectively. It’s interesting that the first thing you say when he’s describing that toxic workplace is, “do you have proof?” As if he’s telling you there’s aliens, or something else that’s hard to believe. Lol.

 

[ValeRx]

I’ve seen it before, too. Not with a Chinese employee, but definitely with a black pharmacist. At this huge hospital with dozens of pharmacists, they would rudely invite everyone to happy hour except the pharmacist who was black. They would also dump work on her, and do other things to sabotage her, and set her up for failure. She was the sweetest person and a good pharmacist, so it couldn’t have been due to personality or work issues. It’s annoying when people act like racism isn’t real.

Comments like yours rub me the wrong way. People are tired of constantly trying to prove that they experience racism and discrimination, when the proof is there for anyone who is willing to look objectively. It’s interesting that the first thing you say when he’s describing that toxic workplace is, “do you have proof?” As if he’s telling you there’s aliens, or something else that’s hard to believe. Lol.

Comments like yours rub me the wrong way. Someone can easily just say they were not given a job due to racism. They perceived their not getting something that they wanted due to racism. A person can just claim it and that's what it is? The comment was, "she was routinely blocked from expanded opportunities/excluded for racial reasons." You don't know that. He doesn't know that. She doesn't know that. Okay? What if she wasn't a great pharmacist to those people? What if they simply didn't like her? You can't just claim it was due to racial reasons just because you feel that way.

 

[Sine Cura]

White people also claim racism too so yeah.

 

[ValeRx]

Reality: A person of a different race is in a position of seniority/authority. You don't get a favorable outcome pertaining to your job. That doesn't mean it's racism. There is a dangerous precedent being set now that you can simply claim racism without any burden of proof and you cannot be questioned? No, I don't think so.

 

[deleted820760]

Reality: A person of a different race is in a position of seniority/authority. You don't get a favorable outcome pertaining to your job. That doesn't mean it's racism. There is a dangerous precedent being set now that you can simply claim racism without any burden of proof and you cannot be questioned? No, I don't think so.

What a straw man argument. Lol. Who is saying this? Just because people are not putting the details of all the incidents on here doesn’t mean they think anytime someone doesn’t get their way, it’s due to racism.

I wonder if he had said what happened to his ex WASN’T due to racism, if you would question him and ask for proof. I’m guessing not. I’m guessing you would automatically take his word that it wasn’t due to racism because that fits your worldview and makes you feel more comfortable than acknowledging the fact that racism is a real and common problem in this country.

 

[lord999]

I wonder what I would do if a friend or acquaintance asked me to refer them, but knowing them, they wouldn’t be a good fit or they really are not as qualified as others who may be applying. That would be such an awkward situation. If I say no, they’re going to be upset and hurt. If I say yes, and they end up being a bad hire, people will lose respect for me and my input. What would you guys do in such a situation?

I value assertiveness and honesty, but it seems like a lot of people would rather hear something nice instead of the truth. Being honest and assertive would ruin some relationships. It’s kind of strange that we, as a society, say we value honesty, but to be successful, we usually have to be political and dishonest.

You shouldn't be surprised. 90% of the time, it's the right thing to do. 5% of the time, it's absolutely the wrong thing to do. If you ask advice from a Pollyanna, don't be surprised if the best days of the career are ahead of them (because they always seem to make their own lives worse). To your above example, if I were management, I would see if the loser employee has a purpose (including being a sacrifice or scapegoat). If not, you do not need to do anything, that employee if they have those traits will take care of themselves. Pity that the manager who hired probably caused enough collateral damage to probably threaten their own position. They have a job to do as well, and to disrupt a productive work environment by their actions will lead the usual results from upper management.

This happens in all organizational management practices. Your only defense as an employee is to whom you sell your labor to. You need to find a workplace that you are shielded from those concerns. That doesn't necessarily mean you get a good or a perfect boss. It does mean you have a boss that you know what they are about and how to manage them in ways that are not antithetical to your existence.

You should move on though. Dwelling on this is counterproductive to your immediate problem. Your immediate problem is whether you can find an environment that you can productively work in as you have determined by your own choice. I do hope you took my advice and respond when you are ready. If not, then it is not likely that lack of advice is the problem.

 

[deleted820760]

To your above example, if I were management, I would see if the loser employee has a purpose (including being a sacrifice or scapegoat).

It cracks me up when you make comments like that. I like that you try to be strategic and make the best of the situation. I don’t agree with your methods, but I‘ve never been in your position.

 

[Marzapan]

So unfortunate. She probably had a lot to offer. These workplaces either don’t realize or don’t care that when they don’t have their **** together and allow these toxic environments, it really does affect their bottom line. They lose good talent, and probably have high turnover, among other problems.

The "group of Asians that weren't Chinese" is most definitely Vietnamese because everyone and their moms in Socal are vietnamese. And seeing how this is the main asian demographic among pharmacy school students, I don't think they're "losing good talent" at all since they have plenty of other Viets to pick from.

 

[deleted820760]

The "group of Asians that weren't Chinese" is most definitely Vietnamese because everyone and their moms in Socal are vietnamese. And seeing how this is the main asian demographic among pharmacy school students, I don't think they're "losing good talent" at all since they have plenty of other Viets to pick from.

His ex wasn’t a pharmacist. By losing good talent, I meant the other people who don’t want to work in a toxic workplace. Not the toxic employees.

 

[Sine Cura]

American multiculturalism is a complete and utter failure (but at least I can get chapli kebab and bun rieu in a 10 mile radius of work)

 

[Marzapan]

His ex wasn’t a pharmacist. By losing good talent, I meant the other people who don’t want to work in a toxic workplace. Not the toxic employees.

Not exactly. You can have a highly toxic yet sustainable workplace - take Cedars Sinai for example. Super toxic pharmacist culture with high turnover, yet it's one of the most progressive/innovative hospitals so it's really good to get trained there (It's competitive to get residencies, even APPEs there etc). Kind of like working at a Big 4 accounting firm - get your few years' experience then get out since they work you to the bone and 60-80 weeks are not sustainable long term. But the experience is invaluable and actually means something on a resume so the top undergrads covet internships with these companies.

 

[deleted820760]

Not exactly. You can have a highly toxic yet sustainable workplace - take Cedars Sinai for example. Super toxic pharmacist culture with high turnover, yet it's one of the most progressive/innovative hospitals so it's really good to get trained there (It's competitive to get residencies, even APPEs there etc). Kind of like working at a Big 4 accounting firm - get your few years' experience then get out since they work you to the bone and 60-80 weeks are not sustainable long term. But the experience is invaluable and actually means something on a resume so the top undergrads covet internships with these companies.

Yikes. Why is it so toxic? Why don’t they hire better people or work towards improving the culture?

 

[Marzapan]

Yikes. Why is it so toxic? Why don’t they hire better people or work towards improving the culture?

I'd have to ask my friends who used to work there, but from what I understand it's a combination of politics with surrounding pharmacy schools, high expectations and the principle of "you can't have too many alphas in one place." If you're smart and a yes-man then you can probably survive, but usually the smart ones are career-driven and want to be able to call the shots.

 

[confettiflyer]

Do you have actual proof of this, or is it just perceived/anecdotal?

Anecdotal of course, which is why I’m not revealing the hospital or department (not that it matters, but there are past/current SDN posters that work there).

These situations are notoriously difficult to prove in our legal system (which is good, IMO), but it was clear to me (we had already broken up long before this incident, so I don’t think I was biased).

The toxic/dysfunctional work environment was pertinent to the OPs discussion, though.

 

[ValeRx]

What a straw man argument. Lol. Who is saying this? Just because people are not putting the details of all the incidents on here doesn’t mean they think anytime someone doesn’t get their way, it’s due to racism.

I wonder if he had said what happened to his ex WASN’T due to racism, if you would question him and ask for proof. I’m guessing not. I’m guessing you would automatically take his word that it wasn’t due to racism because that fits your worldview and makes you feel more comfortable than acknowledging the fact that racism is a real and common problem in this country.

Man, you're such a woke individual. I do hope one day I can see the world as you do. You have no idea the places I've lived, the things I've seen. I suggest you keep your mouth shut and not make assumptions on my "worldview."

 

[confettiflyer]

The "group of Asians that weren't Chinese" is most definitely Vietnamese because everyone and their moms in Socal are vietnamese. And seeing how this is the main asian demographic among pharmacy school students, I don't think they're "losing good talent" at all since they have plenty of other Viets to pick from.

lol nice guess, but not correct - I said in my post that it was not the pharmacy department.

 

[confettiflyer]

lol I didn’t expect my story to veer this thread into a racial discrimination discussion, but I suppose toxic work environments and racial discrimination are two peas in a pod

 

[owlegrad]

It’s funny to me that when people claim that others receive favoritism, that comment almost never gets challenged. Most people accept that favoritism is real and exists in the workplace.

Claim racism though and it’s “where’s your proof?”. Why is racism harder to believe than favoritism?

 

[Marzapan]

This is what SDN has devolved to due to overmodding. I miss a lot of the posters who got banned for their "inflammatory" content...

 

[Farmgurl20]

The "group of Asians that weren't Chinese" is most definitely Vietnamese because everyone and their moms in Socal are vietnamese. And seeing how this is the main asian demographic among pharmacy school students, I don't think they're "losing good talent" at all since they have plenty of other Viets to pick from.

I have seen same in Bay Area pharmacy job market.

 

[Sine Cura]

Favoritism and racism are two sides of the same dodecahedron of tribalism. Or rather racism is a subset of favoritism, like nepotism is

For example "I am racist against degenerate white single moms with 5 kids with 3 baby daddies. I won't even consider hiring them for any position." But prove it legally.

 

[TheBlaah]

One of the pharmacists at my workplace was fired for basically racist remarks a few years ago. HR came and interviewed everybody that was on his shift.

The pharmacist in question was never overt about it, but the person that reported it had a TON of documented evidence over a long period of time.

Generally speaking though, it's pretty hard to nail down racism as people don't wear it on their sleeves.