Nowa­days com­pa­nies are inc­re­asingly allo­ca­ting funds to Emp­lo­yer Bran­ding. Paral­lel with this popu­la­rity some depart­ments such as mar­ke­ting and PR are begin­ning to stake their claim on emp­lo­yer bran­ding acti­vi­ties. If con­ti­nues this way HR may be totally excluded.

“Having more bran­ding expe­ri­ence than HR” is the pri­mary jus­ti­fi­ca­tion for this prac­tice. But in reality they’re in power and they get what they want. Unfor­tu­na­tely some HR depart­ments give in this situation.

But I think we are mis­sing an impor­tant point. Emp­lo­yer bran­ding is HR issue. It’s more than the app­li­ca­tion of bran­ding prin­cip­les to rec­ru­iting. Han­ding it over to PR will end up with failure. Beca­use Emp­lo­yer Bran­ding is much more comp­re­hen­sive than clas­si­cal bran­ding prac­ti­ces. First of all it is clo­sely rela­ted to emp­lo­yer iden­tity. Unders­tan­ding this rela­tion is essen­tial for suc­cess­ful Emp­lo­yer Bran­ding. Let me show just how comp­li­ca­ted it is.

Before giving start to emp­lo­yer bran­ding ini­ti­ative these ques­ti­ons need to be answered:

1. Who are we as an employer?

2. What do we want emp­lo­yees (cur­rent and poten­tial) to think about us as an employer?

3. What do emp­lo­yees (cur­rent and poten­tial) actu­ally think of the organization?

4.  What do emp­lo­yees (cur­rent and poten­tial) beli­eve others think about organization?

Filip Livens and his col­le­agues simp­lify this fra­me­work by so cal­led “cock­tail party test”:

“In social situ­ati­ons such as cock­tail par­ties,  there is a high pro­ba­bi­lity that we have to ans­wer the ques­tion for which orga­ni­za­tion we work. If we sub­se­qu­ently tell who our emp­lo­yer is and the con­ver­sa­tion sways almost imme­di­ately in anot­her direc­tion, this might indi­cate that the orga­ni­za­tion is held in low regard. Howe­ver, if people exp­ress their app­re­ci­ation and keep tal­king about the orga­ni­za­tion, this might sug­gest that the orga­ni­za­tion is highly valued. We will typi­cally com­pare the infor­ma­tion rece­ived from out­si­ders of the orga­ni­za­tion to what we as insi­ders of the orga­ni­za­tion beli­eve the com­pany stands for. When an emp­lo­yer is viewed favo­urably by our­sel­ves and by others, orga­ni­za­ti­onal mem­bers­hip pro­bably enhan­ces our self-esteem and our orga­ni­za­ti­onal iden­ti­fi­ca­tion is likely to be strong. The reverse hap­pens when an emp­lo­yer is held in low regard. In other words, this so-called ‘cock­tail party test’ pro­vi­des valu­able infor­ma­tion for indi­vi­du­als gauging which emp­lo­yers are held in high (or low) regard and how out­si­ders are jud­ging them.”

“From a the­ore­ti­cal point of view, the issues eli­ci­ted by this cock­tail party test can be fra­med in the con­text of social iden­tity the­ory. Accor­ding to this the­ory, people’s iden­tity and self-esteem are partly deter­mi­ned by their mem­bers­hip of social orga­ni­za­ti­ons, such as the orga­ni­za­tion they work for or their spe­ci­fic workg­roup. It is furt­her posi­ted that both the per­ce­ived orga­ni­za­ti­onal iden­tity (i.e. insi­ders’ per­cep­tion of what the orga­ni­za­tion stands for) and the const­rued exter­nal image (i.e. insi­ders’ per­cep­tion of what out­si­ders think the orga­ni­za­tion stands for) of an orga­ni­za­tion are rela­ted to people’s iden­ti­fi­ca­tion with that orga­ni­za­tion (For more deta­ils see Lievens et.al, 2007)”

So the key to att­rac­ting, reta­ining, and enga­ging emp­lo­yees is the holis­tic use of what the busi­ness beli­eves from its core, as embo­died in its emp­lo­yer iden­tity. It’s secu­ring the right people with the right skills in the right jobs and, once its place, estab­lis­hing a rela­ti­ons­hip of trust that enga­ges them to deli­ver the beha­vi­ors so that, ulti­ma­tely, the busi­ness exe­cu­tes on stra­tegy and deli­vers its pro­mise to customers.

It all begins inside. If the brand doesn’t live on the inside, it can’t thrive on the outside.

If the brand isn’t built inside, few may beli­eve it on the outside.

And “iden­tity” is a HR issue. PR does not unders­tand and care this side of Emp­lo­yer Branding.

That’s why the guidance of HR in Emp­lo­yer Bran­ding prac­ti­ces is so crucial.

Tür­ker BAŞ

Refe­ren­ces:

Filip Lievens, Greet Van Hoye and Fre­de­rik Anseel, “Orga­ni­za­ti­onal Iden­tity and Emp­lo­yer Image: Towards a Unif­ying Fra­me­work”, Bri­tish Jour­nal of Mana­ge­ment, Vol. 18, 45–59 (2007).

T.J.Brown, Peter A. Dacin, Mic­hael G. Pratt and David A. Whet­ten, “Iden­tity, Inten­ded Image, Const­ruc­ted Image, and Repu­ta­tion: An Inter­dis­cip­li­nary Fra­me­work and Sug­ges­ted Ter­mi­no­logy” Jour­nal of the Aca­demy of Mar­ke­ting Sci­ence, 34, 2, 99–106 (2006).

Libby Sar­tain, Mark Schu­mann Brand from the Inside, Jos­sey Bass, (2006).

Pay­laş­mak güzel­dir : )

In my pre­vi­ous article “Rec­ru­iting and rese­arc­hing in Turkey”  I pro­po­sed that Turkey can be seen as a pro­mi­nent country not only for glo­bal rec­ru­iters but also for rec­ru­iting rese­arc­hers. Since Turkey ranks among deve­lo­ping count­ries and dif­fers from US with his col­lec­ti­vist cul­ture, it is pos­sible to assert that any US based mana­ge­ment app­ro­ach that pro­vi­des posi­tive out­come in Turkey can be seen as universal.

Today I want to share diag­no­sing phase of our Emp­lo­yer Bran­ding pro­cess which gets posi­tive results in Turkish firms.

As emp­ha­si­zed by Sul­li­van all busi­ness has a an emp­lo­yer brand¹. So the ques­tion is whet­her your emp­lo­yer brand is wor­king for or aga­inst your busi­ness. Whet­her your emp­lo­yer brand att­racts bet­ter app­li­cants and sha­pes their expec­ta­ti­ons about their emp­loy­ment.  For this it is wise to check the health of your emp­lo­yer brand before going any furt­her. You can assess your emp­lo­yer brand by ans­we­ring these questions:

1. Is the cong­ru­ence bet­ween emp­lo­yer brand image and emp­lo­yee bene­fits are clear?

Accor­ding to Kap­fe­rer², brand image is the most a effi­ci­ent way to talk to cus­to­mers via trans­la­ting the dif­fe­rent bene­fits about the brand. One com­mon mis­take HR stra­te­gists make is having too nar­ro­wed view of the emp­lo­yer brand and only focu­sing on func­ti­ona­lity.  The result is often a misa­lign­ment with the emo­ti­onal expec­ta­ti­ons of employees.

2. Is your emp­lo­yer brand sum­ma­rize your com­pany as an employer?

The power of an emp­lo­yer brand depend on how it cre­ates and main­ta­ins a posi­tive repu­ta­tion and an imp­lied posi­tive image in the eyes of cur­rent and pros­pec­tive emp­lo­yees. So, in emp­lo­yer bran­ding pro­cess, func­ti­onal and psyc­ho­lo­gi­cal fac­tors that sum­ma­ri­zes the com­pany as an emp­lo­yer sho­uld become the theme of theme of com­mu­ni­ca­tion and sho­uld be seen as a com­mon star­ting points (CSPs) to com­mu­ni­cate the brand essence in accor­dance with its identity.

3. Is your emp­lo­yer brand dif­fe­ren­ti­ate your com­pany as an employer?

The ori­gi­nal objec­tive of bran­ding was to dis­tin­gu­ish pro­duct, ser­vice, com­pany etc. from simi­lars. Today brand name become more than a label of dif­fe­ren­ti­ation, but its dis­tinc­tive pro­perty is still the essence of bran­ding. Emp­lo­yees as well as cus­to­mers like to be asso­ci­ated with dis­tinc­tive orga­ni­za­ti­ons³. So the emp­lo­yer brand sho­uld dis­tin­gu­ish the com­pany in the minds of cur­rent and pros­pec­tive employees. 

4. Is your Emp­lo­yer Brand har­mo­ni­ous with ove­rall human reso­urce strategy?

If it is not the com­pany is in dan­ger of offe­ring cont­ra­dic­tory pro­mi­ses to its cur­rent and pros­pec­tive emp­lo­yees. If emp­lo­yer brand is lin­ked to HR stra­tegy, the firm will bene­fit from a con­sis­tent inter­nal “pla­ying field” on which to operate.

5. Is your emp­lo­yer brand have a con­sis­tent positioning?

Brand posi­ti­oning pro­vi­des the foun­da­tion of all exter­nal com­mu­ni­ca­ti­ons. A suc­cess­ful emp­lo­yer brand sho­uld appear the same ever­y­w­here with only minor vari­ati­ons. For example Google .…. Failure to cont­rol con­sis­tent posi­ti­oning could lead to dif­fe­ring of the emp­lo­yer brand across tho­ro­ugh dif­fe­rent stakeholders. 

6. Is your emp­lo­yer brand use right mix of media vehicles?

Emp­lo­yer brand com­mu­ni­ca­tion sho­uld focus the right mix of media vehic­les that will maxi­mize awa­re­ness, unders­tan­ding and result in app­li­ca­tion and refer­ral. Emp­lo­yer brand com­mu­ni­ca­tion inc­lude pub­li­city, adver­ti­se­ment and word of mouth.  Adver­ti­se­ment is short term in nature; others focus on long-term results. Using a right mix of short and long term vehic­les will sup­port the con­sis­tent brand mas­sage that cla­ri­fies the value pro­po­sed by the brand.

7. Is your emp­lo­yer brand have a con­ti­nu­ous rela­ti­ons­hip with cur­rent and pros­pec­tive employees?

An emp­lo­yer brand that pur­ports to unders­tand and lis­ten to its cur­rent and pros­pec­tive emp­lo­yees will have more chance of acqu­iring and reta­ining emp­lo­yees. Emp­lo­yees’ expe­ri­en­ces in the com­pany will serve to strengt­hen the emp­lo­yer brand’s iden­tity as having a emp­lo­yee orientation.

Tür­ker BAŞ

Refe­ren­ces:

1. Sul­li­van J. (2008) Leve­ra­ging Tour Pro­duct Brand to Imp­rove Rec­ru­iting, www.ere.net, Janu­ary 28.

2. Kap­fe­rer, J. N. (1997) Stra­te­gic Brand Mana­ge­ment, Lon­don, Kogan Page.

3. Davies, G. (2008) Emp­lo­yer Bran­ding and Its Inf­lu­ence on Mana­gers, Euro­pean Jour­nal of Mar­ke­ting, 42, 5/6,667–681

Pay­laş­mak güzel­dir : )

In his March 2006 article, “Rec­ru­iting in Europe”, Dr. John Sul­li­van under­li­ned that talent has become a glo­bal com­mo­dity and that rec­ru­iters’ tool­kit sho­uld con­tain an arse­nal of tools that work out­side their back­yard as well. Sul­li­van also cal­led for atten­tion to Turkey that pro­duce highly edu­ca­ted popu­la­ti­ons and yield the ever-so-popular wage differential.

Pay­laş­mak güzel­dir : )