Qualtrics Reviews

Cons

In order to obtain promotion you have to be extremely outspoken and identify contributions and impacts being made. Passive employees can often get passed up or stuck at a level unless they advocate and make a lot of noise.

Cons

Metrics can be difficult to keep up with. Hiring so fast that they have a lot of entry level churn.

Cons

Politics, definite favorites within the company, criteria for advancement wasn't uniform

Cons

Bonuses are based on relative ranking.... Meaning with as many talented people as there are you have to sometimes be bit insane/lucky/overpowered, to stand out...

Cons

This will be from the lens of someone in sales (lower tier Account Executive):

1)

What happens when you have success and you are really cheap? You promote from within. Make sure to label it as a ‘strength’ though versus a weakness. This is something Qualtrics has excelled at on multiple accounts.

Sometimes promoting from within can be great. If you are in a static market, it makes sense. There is little change in the everyday business and sales process. However, if you are in a startup environment where everything is constantly changing, you're setting yourself up for a bad time.

That bad time is in full effect right now. These homegrown legacy sales managers and region leads have no idea what or why the customers of today are purchasing Qualtrics (especially as it relates to SMB, Mid-). To sum it up, their mindset is outdated. This is more than a problem. These same individuals are the people who are doing ALL of the training.

I would love a competent leader from an outside organization to sit in on one of these sessions. I do not remember the last training that was well received. It’s comical at this point. This communication gap needs to be resolved.

2)

Attrition is high. Not sorta high - I mean extremely high. Out of a group of 9 or 10 sales reps on my team from when I started, only two of the are left. Also, two of the most tenured reps in the company have also left in the last few months, too.

This is caused by many different factors, namely 1) account allocation 2) hiring too many quota carriers and 3) data in our CRM. The only individuals who hit are ones who either got really lucky with account allocation or the reps who have been here for eons and have great accounts.

While leadership says that they don’t care if attrition is high as long as their ‘best’ reps stay, that’s unproductive. The only way someone gets promoted is if they have a solid territory. The problem is that these territories are divided up arbitrarily. I've seen so much potential talent walk out that door because of unfair circumstances.

But wait, am I just making excuses? I don' know - ask the 75% of the software sales team that didn't hit their quota.

Cons

Communication: Leadership does well communicating top level vision, middle managers outside of Ryan's directs (the next tier down) do a very poor job in sharing clearly. While we are radically transparent in many ways, there is a lot lost in telephone-game style communication as it flows downstream. I often have to go to an RStaff member to get information that my boss does not have or isn't in sync on. Cross office communication is poor. Provo folks do a poor job communicating effectively to the other offices. This is starting to shift as there are more employees outside of Provo now and is becoming less and less of a central hub.

No Paternity leave.

Cons

1. They want to be next google, but it is actually a sales-driven company. All they care is about making profit instead of doing thing the right way and infra is crappy.
2. Employee compensation is below the industry average
3. Cross team communication is difficult and documentation is POOR.
4. Management doesn't actually value your opinion and interest.
5. RSUs are negligible if you join now

Cons

Especially in sales, there is an extreme lack of women in the workplace.

Cons

Poor management in the EE/360 department.

Cons

Hmm, where to start? Let's start with the fact that multiple employees are asked, often, to submit reviews to Glassdoor to "drown" out negative reviews. I have no doubt that this review will be followed by multiple super positive and happy posts about why Qualtrics is the best place on planet earth to work. Such manipulation and deceitfulness is par for the course at a company that claims to help other organizations solve employee engagement problems while having some of the most disengage employees I have ever met.

Key questions to consider when thinking about working at Qualtrics:

Why is turnover so extremely high at Qualtrics? Over a five year span, we are coming up on near 100% turnover...

Why is pay so low?

Why are there no real career progression opportunities?

Why is all senior leadership so arrogant, and why are they so inaccessible to employees?

Why are all leadership positions staffed with external hires?

Why does so much favoritism exist in a company that professes merit-based recognition?

Why have four executives left in the last four years?