Employer branding - still predominantly a recruitment tool or a business necessity?

Wed, Nov 16th, 2005

Brands affect every part of our life. Their lifecycles can vary enormously and their effect during their period of influence can be all pervasive. The power of branding can manifest itself in several ways. Driving a top of the range Range Rover could brand Tom as arrogant and wealthy, but once we were aware that it was 8 years old and he had had it converted to diesel, the perception changes.

Much of the cause of the evolution of the "Me" brand can be traced to the massive popularity of Pop Idol and Reality TV. Many employers have recognised this and, wanting to be employers of choice, have listened to customers and employees. The results on the bottom line in some cases have been staggering as the "Brand" has been built. Southwest Airlines has managed to make a profit every year since its founding in 1972, with 85% of people now demonstrating their commitment to the brand by involving themselves collectively in community activities. However, most employers (85%) actually admit to having difficulty in recruiting and retaining top talent.

Aspiring to being an Employer of Choice means "building an employer brand", based on overall experience, not just on glamorous advertising. What is a Brand? Two definitions seem appropriate :

A mixture of tangible and intangible attitudes symbolised in a trademark which if properly managed creates influence and generates value.. "Intangible" refers to the emotion it gives and what it says about "Me". "Tangible" refers to "what does it feel like and "how does it perform and treat me. "An organisation's principles, aims and values that create a sense of individuality which differentiates a brand". "Harris de Charnatoy - 2001" This has nothing to do with the "Look and Feel" of the brand and more to do with what the brand can do for "Me".

The satisfaction of a brand can be defined as experience / expectation. In other words, it is all about experience, but can be ruined if the expectation is not properly managed. People who destroy brands are the line managers who destroy the "expectation". They can be line managers in any part of the business.

The power of a brand can also, interestingly, have a dramatic effect on the confidence of a organisation which needs to reinvent itself. There is a direct relationship between the amount of change an organisation can tolerate and the power of the brand message. It therefore follows that, in a fast moving business environment, those organisations most likely to succeed are those with strong brands which can work with long term change. A good example is Weightwatchers which is the only profitable organisation in its sector and which offers long term change. Its arch-rival, Atkins, failed because what was recommended, e.g. a diet of cabbage soup and high protein, was unsustainable in the long term. A brand is, in effect, a contract, which says "This is what I can give you in return" and sustain the contract. In the case of Atkins, this was not possible.

Brands are also better communicated through segmentation through different audiences. The Toyota car advertisement in which a child tells the parent to drive on illustrates how influential even 9-11 year olds have become. In fact, children have a disproportionate influence on the purchase of parents' choice of vehicles. As a result of this shift in the "power" of children, 83% of global organisations now have a tween strategy. Even Coca Cola have taken the message on board, by sponsoring a high school in North Carolina.

Finally, it is important to mention metrics in the context of HR. It is also instructive to draw comparisons with the experience of Marketing. It is just not possible to put a monetary value on HR as it is difficult to measure the precise area where the activity has taken place and how much. A common failure of some management is that they:

think that HR starts in recruitment and stays in recruitment think that no one outside HR need be involved think that metrics are not needed beyond attraction metrics want to justify all metrics only recruitment advertising is eligible for an award no research is need to arrive at a position

It is vital that the branding issue in relation to HR and recruitment is recognised at Board level, that a coherent and deliverable strategy is in place and that these mistakes and preconceptions are dispelled.

In short, dealing with brands is exciting. However, it is a tightrope business where the utmost care has to be taken in dealing with and managing the brand.

Sam Thirlby Smith

GSK have a different approach to employer branding as compared to many competitors and employers in different sectors.

GSK has worked hard to develop their brand and are now the Employer of Choice. It has done this in many subtle ways. They have assumed, rightly, that candidates want to be part of the brand. They therefore look after their good candidates. For example, candidates are called at home before interviews. Good people with leadership skills are made to feel special by being identified (e.g. perhaps by being the captain of university rugby) and then invited to a day's induction at the company. The idea is that a focused approach is better rather than a broad "milk round" approach where you try to identify and attract those at the pinnacle.

Candidates are identified with a view to the long term - the last thing the company wants for its own reputation is for the recruit to have a career problem after 6 months and become disillusioned.

Competitor organisations are still talking about process. At GSK it is about the special experience with constant attention to exceeding the expectation. People respond naturally by being considerate, polite, team orientated and hard-working.