Seattle Children's reviews

3.8

66% would recommend to a friend

(1,324 total reviews)
avatar

Jeff Sperring

57% approve of CEO

53% positive business outlook

Seattle Children's has an employee rating of 3.8 out of 5 stars, based on 1,324 company reviews on Glassdoor which indicates that most employees have a good working experience there. The Seattle Children's 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

1K reviews
2.0
Jan 10, 2015

Mixed

Recommend
CEO approval
Business Outlook

Pros

Very competitive pay People with whom I worked really care about the mission of the hospital - caring for sick kids A number of smart people in Information Systems (IS)

Cons

Nepotism and parochialism are rampant in IS. A wife working for her husband, a company where spouse works is hired to perform services. It's a "good old boys" network with all the consequences - incompetent are promoted to be managers and directors. A CIO who has established a faulty infrastructure that does not work and who has no ability to fix it, who promotes a culture of "do not ask do not tell" policy and who have been promoting his friends to director-level management. An ex-military who wrote an e-mail to the employees with the following: "you are not getting your bonus this year, on the other hand I just made my last alimony payment and am going to celebrate my birthday in tropics"

1.0
Sep 9, 2024

Failed Management please change or move on

Recommend
CEO approval
Business Outlook

Pros

The pro’s are my immediate co-workers and the mission. They are/were some of the best co-workers I’ve encountered in my long tech career. This includes talented current and ex co-workers who were thrown out like refuse after many years of dedication. The ones I worked with were/are kind, knowledgeable, accountable, and dedicated. The good has started to not outweigh the bad.

Cons

The ever ongoing bungles of this upper management regime just keeps piling up but one can only take so much toxic, unprofessional, and short sighted behavior from one’s employer. I’ve lost count of the number of managers I’ve cycled through while on the same team and the times teams have been left floating on their own without any kind of leadership or direction, even when we have been asking for leadership to do their jobs. When Management does decide to show themselves - it rarely helps resolve any of the concerns we bring up (budgets, strategy, security concerns, etc). If anything - they just pop up occasionally to stir the pot and create more issues (in a “look what I can do” style) or to try to cover up some issue that finally did bubble into view which could have been avoided if they had *just* listened to their experts and empowered them to do their jobs. It is problematic how adamantly this CEO/CDIO is set on outsourcing IT no matter the cost to loyal employees, patients, and families. This will not end well for anyone involved, not even the C-Suite’s filled pockets. Management’s intentional choice to only look at individual specific vendors rather than a bake-off really doesn’t seem to fit the alleged “need” to save money. It definitely has an air of “back scratching” and individual kickbacks for those left after the flames consume there rest of us. The contracts will be poorly written (just as we have seen time and time again with current vendors), and SCH will be left broken and/or nickel and dimed to death. It makes even less sense when one of those vendors is projected to file for bankruptcy within a year and is outsourcing all of their acquired talent at a rapid pace. This “plan” doesn’t set up our Doctors, Families, and Patients for a good or successful experience. Many on the medical side are not happy about the possibility of their interactions with IT worsening more than they already experience today. Many refuse to contact the Service Desk for help since our outsourced service desk already took a bad experience and made it worse. Unqualified leadership was covered broadly in other reviews, but a specific one to be called out is the fact that a completely non-technical Director for IT Services and Infrastructure was hired, when the job description clearly states that the position should be held by someone capable of being a technical reference. This Director has self-admitted that they only have experience in contract and vendor management, no technical background. You can’t effectively lead a technical team or even make informed decisions to outsource a technical team’s work if you don’t understand what they do. This also applies to the CDIO. The technical experts aren’t even being allowed to help in vetting these vendors capabilities or correctly describe the work that we do properly, even though we’ve asked to be involved from an objective standpoint. There is no way in reality that this will be able to be deemed a success if it happens. How will a Director of Infrastructure with only vendor management qualifications lead if the outsourcing doesn’t end up happening? Will the faux IT Director be replaced? Or is upper management already decided to make it happen no matter the likely consequences? This is just one of many red flags that all of this “feasibility study” business has been a farce in bad faith from upper management the entire time. All the evidence points to outsourcing having had been decided upon a long time ago and that it is already deemed a success just as other failed outsourcing efforts have been handled (Service Desk and EPIC). Management also have already done several rounds of position eliminations that were done in an incredibly careless manner. It was terrible for those who were let go, but also for those left behind to pick up the pieces. In Management’s own words “positions have been eliminated to align the team size in preparation for expanded managed services” which has helped cement general consensus that outsourcing was already rubber stamped many many months ago. Speaking of saving money, IT keeps doing it every year above what’s asked but we never get real recognition for it - just the consistent threat of being outsourced and demand of quadrupling the money savings ask. Maybe they could stop resorting to travel nurses and bleeding money there. Maybe the C’s could do with a little less bonuses, flights, conferences, retreats etc. Might help you think for yourselves rather than following the current C-Level quick money grab trend of outsourcing that has been a failure for most places. It can’t be expected that a MSP would be able to provide a white-glove experience that is often a requirement of medical/research industries at any kind of cost savings. Remember, we are trying to save lives here. The contracts will be poorly written (just as we have seen time and time again with current vendors), and SCH will be left broken and/or nickel and dimed to death. We in the rest of IT already don’t get compensated as much as we could if we went to work at for-profit places but we stay because we believe in and care about the mission even after having been told we kill children with our salaries on multiple occasions.

avatar
Seattle Children's Response
1y
Thank you for raising your concerns about senior leadership within IT. We are committed to creating a comfortable, transparent and supportive environment for all our employees. We understand and apologize this has not been your experience. Thank you for your commitment to our mission and the patients and families who need us.
2.0
Aug 23, 2024

In the process of failing

Recommend
CEO approval
Business Outlook

Pros

The people I work with are some of the best colleagues I've ever had. They truly care, do excellent work, and have bought fully into the mission of helping sick kids.

Cons

Executive management seems hostile and determined to make it impossible to perform our jobs at a high level. We're in our fifth consecutive year of ever-increasing budget cuts, and yet our leadership team seems absolutely obsessed with growth via purchasing organizations, real estate, and facilities we literally cannot afford. This was understandable in Year 1 of COVID when everybody was taken by surprise. It's much less excusable in Year 5 of COVID. As mentioned by previous reviews, the CDIO operates from a needlessly adversarial mentality that technology and clinical are in direct competition for funding, rather than working to leverage and multiply the effectiveness of clinical staff and resources using technology. We should be allowing technical people to lead technology and let the clinical leadership focus on clinical. There's only so many times anyone is willing to listen to "this is how many children you're killing by being paid your salary." The latest scheme seems to be outsourcing the entirety of IT to a vendor who are currently also failing, due to being acquired by private equity and divesting themselves of all talent to be replaced by offshore contractors, and who are themselves expected to file for bankruptcy within the next twelve months. The executive team has been engaging in bad faith, giving updates which are intentionally misleading or outright false. When asked directly whether layoffs were going to occur, the CDIO responded that none were planned. A few months later, a round of layoffs was announced along with a message about how lengthy and difficult a process it was determining who was going to be affected - demonstrating that the CDIO was already working on said layoffs while simultaneously denying that they were going to take place. When confronted directly, his response was that he had technically said that no "system-wide" layoffs would occur, and that this was a departmental process instead - relying upon that technicality to claim he hadn't been dishonest. While asserting for months that no decision has yet been made regarding the outsourcing, there has been a continual trickle of details such as "when this happens you'll be a contractor with the vendor for a guaranteed six months minimum" and "this vendor has such great employee benefits" from the leadership team; details which make no sense and have no context if the outsourcing decision hasn't already been made and contract negotiations aren't well in process. Combined with the previous bad faith, this simply looks like intentional deception. The consistent messaging throughout this process has been "You're lucky to have a job at all, just look at other hospital systems" (which seems disingenuous in a context of taking hundreds of jobs away) and "It's difficult being a leader and making unpopular decisions, you should all stop being angry and be supportive instead." That statement is true, but the anger has been driven by mismanagement and dishonesty from the C-suite, none of which has ever been acknowledged, not from the "unpopular decisions." Leadership seem oblivious to staff morale. Announcing intent to lay off the entire department is bad enough, but ever since, it's been a nonstop stream of C-suite "updates" providing no new information but pushing the values of unity, common purpose, keeping together, motivation, investment, and open communication, all of which come across as extremely tone-deaf and little more than mindless platitudes. Where to even begin with all the other problems outside the IT space which have been a source of continual black eyes to the org? Failing DEI programs resulting in staff still leaving because they don't feel safe, repeated issues with OR-acquired infections despite remediation, negligent care and alleged discrimination leading to patient death. All of these things have been in the news while I've been in my position here. I cannot recommend Children's as an employer, particularly in IT, but that seems moot, because it seems unlikely that Children's wil. be looking to do technology hiring anytime soon.

avatar
Seattle Children's Response
1y
Thank you for taking the time to share your feedback. We strive to foster an environment where employees are heard, respected and engaged. We apologize this has not been your experience. We are grateful for your dedication to our mission and the work you've done for our organization.
Viewing 16 - 18 of 1,324 Reviews

Glassdoor has 1,440 Seattle Children's reviews submitted anonymously by Seattle Children's employees. Read employee reviews and ratings on Glassdoor to decide if Seattle Children's is right for you.