From time to time, there is a new wave of debate over the concept of an ‘employer brand’. Does it exist? If so, what does it mean? And does it make any difference to business performance?
A further discussion on the topic was sparked recently by contributors to a Linked-in group of which I’m a member. The debate centred on the difference between concept and reality, and the relevance to employee performance and productivity on a day-to-day basis. And, once again, opinion was divided.
I’m not surprised by the conflicting emotions that these discussions spark. There are those who fervently believe that every company needs a clear expression of what the organisation is and offers to its people. Then there are others who think the whole exercise is a waste of time and does little to engage and inspire the people on whom an organisation relies.
I have to confess to some sympathy with both points of view. I happen to be one of those people that sees a key role for a well-articulated, creative expression of the organisation’s personality, values and opportunities. A well-crafted proposition – one that inspires people with opportunity, but is rooted in the reality of life within the company – can be a valuable tool in attracting, inspiring and retaining talented people. It can help employers stand out from the competition, which may be particularly important in the coming months as the economy recovers and recruitment freezes begin to thaw.
But I am also a frustrated observer when an organisation does little with a proposition it has articulated – or doesn’t draw one together in the first place. To me, that is a wasted opportunity. For example, if they have done the basics, but they leave the proposition on a Powerpoint chart. Or they don’t articulate a creative expression. Or they do creative work but fail to rigorously apply it across touchpoints with current and potential employees. These are scenarios in which the organisation is missing a chance to connect with its people and to help them see how they can grow, blossom and benefit from giving their best to the company.
In such situations, perhaps the naysayers are right. Brands only exist for us in the way we experience them, so if the company is not articulating a cohesive employment offer, we can’t really experience an ‘employer brand’. We’ll just interact with the company in a myriad of apparently separate, unconnected ways. And is that really likely to make us see a long-term future in the company, or feel inspired to give our best to the cause whilst we are there?
Perhaps the answer is that an ‘employer brand’ should exist – if the company is switched on. Otherwise, it will pale in comparison to competitors when the war for talent returns.
