Baton Rouge General reviews

Summary: The picture that is painted in the interview is quite different from reality. The work environment is quite toxic and staff morale throughout the department was consistently low. Human Resources has been aware for quite some time, but nothing has changed except that leadership provides more food to staff- a need that was not voiced. Employees that have been with the organization for over 10 years have left, as well as employees with less than a year. Leadership in the department have not taken any interest in employee retention and have said to staff that, “This is just how things go. It happens in cycles”. The Breakdown: TRAINING: Training was very unstructured and offered very little to actual prepare its employees. Those doing the training even admitted just as much and offered their apologies. TECHNOLOGY: One of the company’s values is innovation, but the technology here leaves much to be desired. PAY: The pay is quite low and there is little room for negotiation. Once you accept the role and view the pay range on the internal website, you will realize just how low of an offer it was. There is no rhyme or reason to it, and wages are far from fair, especially considering that this is a salaried position and there is a lot of after hours work that is required. The crazy part is, that someone hired after you with less experience and education could still make significantly more than you do from the start. WORK/LIFE BALANCE: There is very little work/life balance in this department. The on-call schedule requirements that were told in my interview did not match what was required by the team once I started. We were on-call more often than stated and the reality did not align with what I was originally told it would be until my last month of employment. On several occasions that the team was needed outside of traditional work hours, it was communicated at the last minute. LACK OF QUALITY: There is an overall lack of quality control, and the perception of physicians is above all else. Failures are heavily downplayed, and almost nothing will stop a project from moving forward. If you care about quality, efficiency, and outcomes, this is not the place for you. HUMAN RESOURCES: HR is well aware of the low morale in the department, and turnover seems high. Employee engagement surveys are completed anonymously twice a year. The IS department tends to be amongst the lower scoring departments, so HR conducts a roundtable of sorts with staff. It is difficult to speak freely because a member of management reportedly has to be in the room, and when employees voice their concerns, it feels like HR is on the side of leadership. LEADERSHIP: Unchecked egos, gaslighting, and a gross lack of accountability by leadership contribute to a toxic work environment. Despite what staff expresses in roundtables following employee engagement surveys, the only thing that changes is that more food is provided to staff, which is far from what is really needed. There is no interest in fixing true problems, and leadership does not take accountability for how their actions have led to departmental discord. In the interview, you may be told that they want to bring in fresh perspectives, but after being there you will likely soon realize that groupthink is the expectation. When you resign, they show no interest in learning why you have decided to leave. You are just a body, and everyone else is the problem in their eyes. Common human decency seems non-existent. *Middle management knows far less about the clinical applications than the people that are being supervised and lack basic troubleshooting skills. When leading projects, short-sighted decisions are frequently made, and as a result the team often has to do a lot of rework just prior to go-lives. Aside from that, seeds of distrust are sown when management takes it upon themselves to quickly disseminate information provided to them in private, to other staff via text message, word of mouth, or other modality. Another issue that causes distrust is that often times certain team members are singled out, and through hushed whispers in a cubicle, management solicits advice that will impact the whole team, and then only give the rest of the team the directive. The lack of honesty and transparency does not lend well to trust or a great working relationship amongst peers, or between staff and management. *Senior leadership reads as disingenuous, callous, and lacking empathy. At all times, you are expected to put the needs of the organization first. Death and mental health mean nothing, and neither does holding themselves accountable. There is a need to control the narrative and a hyper focus on optics, so despite having nothing but good reviews during your tenure, you may be shown the door as an exercise to wield their final semblance of power and to save face, if you decide to resign and they do not see an immediate use for you. The egos of certain individuals in senior leadership are bruised quite easily and the response received by employees is retaliation. While others in leadership may recognize that what is happening is wrong, they will hold their tongue and sit idly by. They do not care about you while you are there so do not expect anything more during your departure.