Health Catalyst reviews

3.3

44% would recommend to a friend

(782 total reviews)
avatar

Ben Albert

28% approve of CEO

24% positive business outlook

Health Catalyst has an employee rating of 3.3 out of 5 stars, based on 782 company reviews on Glassdoor which indicates that most employees have a good working experience there. The Health Catalyst employee rating is in line with the average (within 1 standard deviation) for employers within the Healthcare industry (3.4 stars).

Reviews by job title

782 reviews
3.0
Dec 31, 2018

Very Generous company

Anonymous employee
Recommend
CEO approval
Business Outlook

Pros

The management team is very open about the High level direction of the company. They are very focused on becoming profitable. Very modern approach to employees and Work/Personal balance. Good bonus plans

Cons

In some cases their "Transparency" (favorite work of every meeting) has a negative affect on employees. Mixed messages on watching expenses vs revenue...then they spend money that is not necessary from an employees view and look for ways, that are damaging to employees, to offset expenses...

avatar
Health Catalyst Response
7y
Thank you for your feedback and for choosing to join Health Catalyst, I appreciate you sharing your perspective on the topic of transparency, and agree that it is a tenuous balancing act between transparency and being a "human heat shield" as we have discussed in prior all-team-member meetings. We do tend to err on the side of transparency, trusting team members to be able to handle some of the bumpiness of this tendency to share information. But I acknowledge that, in hindsight, we haven't always gotten this balance exactly right. You have my commitment to strive to learn quickly and try to continuously improve in this regard. Thanks again, Dan
1.0
Dec 17, 2018
Recommend
CEO approval
Business Outlook

Pros

Benefits. Smart (but subservient) employees tossed in here and there.

Cons

No career growth, blatant nepotism, a beautiful and phenomenally well articulated mission that falls on its face when it comes to execution. Smart but dizzy employees who have been run hard and in circles. As a team member you will routinely hear that the company values transparency, in fact its importance is pounded into your head, and you are reminded of it and other principles at the beginning of each team meeting. A lot of the content is regurgitated monthly and in my opinion at times borders on feeling theocratic. While a good principle, the transparency from my experience applies solely at the the macro level, more specifically it applies to information you receive at all team member meetings from 1-3 key leaders, and from the CEO in particular, but unfortunately at meso and micro levels things shift from transparence to translucence, muddy, and often opaque. This is further exacerbated by a lack of standards between departments, and while a lack of standards would suggest agility and was likely beneficial in a growth and startup phase, in my humble opinion it seems less appropriate for a company founded in 2008. In short when it comes to daily operations transparency falls by the way side, instead replaced by passive aggressive behaviors, which I think in many peoples' minds is the "nicer" thing to do. Bringing up concerns with how management is (or is not) addressing an issue is career suicide, especially if you're perceived as a threat to the current state of the "system". I like to think of the professional environment at HC using the atomic model as an analogy of sorts (HC loves analogies, as do I). At the nucleus you have key executives who are largely related by blood or marriage. These executives gather with a fairly predictable cadence, so in short a biased conduit exists, beliefs are routinely reinforced, opportunities are recurringly afforded to the same select body of individuals, usually those related to the executives, or disproportionately those in the first orbital: ex-Intermountain employees. Most of what HC lives, breathes, preaches, and believes is lifted largely from Intermountain, which isn't to poo poo Intermountain, but there are other successful healthcare system in the United States, and the world, so it's a bit myopic and results in oddly homogeneous dialogue and large doses of confirmation bias, etc. The second orbital in our model is a blindly loyal and devout bastion of employees, often holding VP and SVP titles, many in non-client roles who are grossly overpaid for the value they provide. This bastion isn't stupid in most senses of the word, thus they know where their bread is buttered and that there is no chance they could make elsewhere what HC pays them. In typical fashion these individuals have grown quite accustomed to the gravy, so they will do whatever is necessary to maintain the social status quo, ensuring orbital 1 and especially the nucleus remain intact. You say jump, we jump. You nod, we jump. Changing gears slightly, rather than telling the non-orbital team members where they can improve I have witnessed first hand on more than one occasion where the "solution" pursued was one of withholding work from said team members; a waiting game effectively ensues, and ultimately the employee either quits, wilts on the vine, or theoretically receives some form of severance if they have the gumption to acknowledge the elephant in the room, broach the sensitive issue and start the crucial conversation, but this is largely precluded by the fact that HC hires for "humble" (read spineless) employees who will align with the agenda and mission. If you want to work at HC and receive an offer, I advise to ask yourself what is that you're looking for, and if HC will help you get there. Scratch, and perhaps even pierce the veneer - what do you see?

avatar
Health Catalyst Response
7y
Thank you for sharing this feedback. I have read and reread your feedback, and then considered your feedback while reviewing many other sources of data, including a detailed review of every comment we received as part of the December 2018 Gallup team member survey (which Gallup conducts every six months), reviewing the 360-degree feedback data on every manager at Health Catalyst, received in December 2018, and conducting 1:1 interviews with a number of team members who recently chose to leave Health Catalyst. The issues you raise are very important to understand, and it's critical for me, in my role as CEO, to proactively seek out and find ways to receive unfiltered, direct, and accurate feedback about how we are performing in these critical areas. This includes the very important need to receive and understand feedback in areas where we need to improve. After reviewing and considering all of this feedback collectively, while striving to neither under- nor over-respond to the critical feedback, I will share that while I don't agree with every perspective you share, nor do I believe the balanced review of a more full data set supports each of your assertions, I can see some definite patterns where your feedback is supported by other data and suggests the importance of paying attention and then working hard to change and improve. This includes the need to train managers to encourage transparency in their actions and in their discussions with team members. This will be a focused part of our manager training in 2019. It also includes the reinforcement of the correct definition and application of the attribute of humility -- especially the importance of careful listening and continuous learning. I study our turnover data every month, and we discuss it every month as a leadership team and share it quarterly with every team member and with the board. I receive an email notification every time a team member leaves the company, and tomorrow we will review together in our All Team Member meeting, the latest trailing-twelve-month turnover for the company, updated through December. The company's trailing-twelve-month voluntary turnover rate through December was 6%, far below the industry average, and trending downward, which is encouraging. I also review, by individual, each month, those who left the company, and often conduct private 1:1 interviews to better understand what may have led to their decision to leave. In December, with a total team member base of 750 individuals, we had one (1) individual leave the company, and I spent 90 minutes visiting with that individual to better understand what led to their decision. There is much that can be learned from this study, and we intend to strive to continuously learn from this process. We are far from perfect, and there is much we need to focus on in 2019 in order to improve. And in the areas you highlight I know of no quick-fix solutions. But I do believe in the powerful cumulative effect of daily focus and commitment to keep the team member experience as my top priority, and of steady incremental improvement. This will be my commitment for as long as I am in this position. I wish you success in your new endeavors and hope you will find an ideal working environment in which to do meaningful work. Best, Dan
3.0
Dec 14, 2018

Could Be Better

Anonymous employee
Recommend
CEO approval
Business Outlook

Pros

Great benefits, talented employees, great CEO

Cons

The direction the company has taken over the past year does not appear to be working and they do not appear to be ready to pull the plug. One of the biggest things that is not working is the generalist model with ASO. Expecting all of the team members in that group to know everything about healthcare data is not working and wasting lots of time and money. It is better to have people specialized in specific areas. I think there are a lot of people on that team that are floundering from what I can tell and have seen. There are also people on that team that are being underutilized. You have highly skilled team members doing minimal tasks for clients that should be done by someone on a junior level, but when you just assign a team member to a client there is an array of tasks that can be asked of them. I have talked to people who are unhappy with this model and I have also seen first hand when it fails at a client. If I have a heart condition I am going to go to a cardiologist and not a family practitioner. Specialists exist for a reason, because sometimes people and data need specialists who fully understand the work that needs to be done and not someone who is trying to know a little about everything. This can cause confusion and mistakes.

avatar
Health Catalyst Response
7y
Thank you for your feedback, and thank you for the contributions you've made to the company for more than three years. I agree with many of your perspectives regarding the need to balance a generalist model with a specialist model. Leveraging your analogy regarding physicians, there is clearly a need for primary care physicians as well as for specialists. Over the past few years we've focused quite a bit of time and energy building out the "primary care" or generalist team and capability set, and that has been important and central to the rapid growth of the services business. But now it is clear that we have a need to strengthen what we can offer, from a value-added perspective, with more domain expertise in targeted areas of consistent customer demand. There are challenges with a specialist model in that the demand for a specialist is quite variable and somewhat difficult to predict, and their capabilities are not very fungible. So it is a model that requires careful consideration and careful growth. But it is also a model that if done right provides differentiated value. Thanks again for your feedback and for your contributions! Best, Dan
Viewing 568 - 570 of 782 Reviews

Glassdoor has 845 Health Catalyst reviews submitted anonymously by Health Catalyst employees. Read employee reviews and ratings on Glassdoor to decide if Health Catalyst is right for you.