Confluence

Why ‘employer branding’ falls short

If you’ve been reading my commentary, you know that I stand for branding that authentically maps the cultures of organizations to their engagement strategies. This applies in both marketplace and human capital arenas, and it’s a key reason why we summarize our work in the latter realm as talent branding. We focus first on the native culture of a workforce as its most authentic and compelling basis for attracting and cultivating talent. Call it an inside-out approach.

Is it also important to discover how potential recruits and other stakeholders view a company from the outside in? Of course it is, but in our view refining a talent brand has to start with discovering the authentic points of value that inspire members of the existing workforce, the factors that keep them on the job, whatever their tenure and degree of experience.

This underscores what we see as a game-changing flaw in ‘employer branding’ formulas that home in on direct recruiting as the primary expression of the brand. An exclusive preoccupation with reaching out to recruits here can unfairly skew what should be a thorough and empathetic discovery initiative in all segments of the culture.

Talent brands should be inclusive of all workplace values through all stages of the employee life cycle. They should certainly inspire creative recruiting, but still supply the theme and creative energy for all human capital initiatives, from retention to staff development to inclusive leadership and so on.

This focus on culture as brand driver is not a perspective unique to Brand Vistas. Several commentators and consultants, notably Nicolas Ind and Mary Jo Hatch, have embraced this view for years, and made it the touchstone for a wider-gauge emphasis on corporate branding. It’s interesting that most of their case work is European.

Are practitioners of ‘employer branding’ in this country too enamored of the market-centered metrics of packaged goods branding to see the strategic role that human capital branding can play in the cultural health and talent environment of an organization?  

Retail noir

It’s vital for a retail brand to fine-tune the customer experience for optimal effect. But should this stewardship of customer touch points extend to regulating the in-store wardrobes of sales associates? The leadership cadres at Macy’s and Bloomingdales evidently feel that it should. Salespeople at both chains are required to wear basic black on the job (shirts and blouses, of course, are excepted).

The stated rationale, at least at Macy’s, is to ensure that customer service personnel stand out on the sales floor, making their presence more immediately evident to customers. One associate tells me that even suppliers’ reps visiting the stores are also expected to abide by the all-black dress code. In his view, this is a ploy to inflate the perceived associate-to-customer ratio in the eyes of shoppers.

You can guess that many employees are grumbling about this rule, and not only because it means extra out-of-pocket wardrobe expenses for (non-Goth) staffers. Some Macy’s associates suggest that the dress code is really an attempt to rein in potential fashion ‘statements’ of younger associates that, presumably, wouldn’t play well with the ideal target demographic. We have to say that we’ve observed a trend that suggests this motive at some blue-chip law firms here in the Washington area, where female receptionists are issued two identical, and usually black, pantsuits when they are hired.

This is juicy case study material. The customer experience is certainly a critical component in all value brands, but is this really what dress codes like this are about? Some might say that in these instances going all black, or all anything, is an arbitrary stab at non-specific conformity, a policy that’s entirely at odds with striving for earned authenticity in the brand experience. In a more extreme interpretation, some might question if the ‘suits’ are enforcing fashion conformity to suppress one means through which cultural or demographic diversity in the workforce finds expression.

Your thoughts?

What are the hallmarks of a culture of inclusion?

I want to follow up on last week’s posts on the role of inclusion and other inside-out values in how Brand Vistas builds resonant and authentic brands. Over the years, we’ve developed a few benchmarks to help decision-makers get a handle on what we mean by an authentically inclusive culture, and also to help them assess the progress their organizations are making toward this admirable goal.

In a nutshell, building an inclusion culture means creating a workplace where all individual perspectives and contributions are treated with respect and honesty. This seems straightforward enough as an uplifting objective, but getting there in the real world? Maybe not so simple.

So how do you know when you’re getting close?

…when talent and initiative are prized and rewarded without regard to gender, ethnicity, lifestyle, physical ability, or religious preference

… when all members of your workforce, top to bottom, share a felt sense of personal inclusion in shaping the organization’s future.

... when all your team members are encouraged to share in –and help refine—company-wide inclusion efforts.

… when the collective cultural know-how of your workforce aligns productively with all aspects of corporate strategy AND your organization’s marketplace or outreach initiatives.

… when everyone in the company, institution, or agency is invited to help recruit and retain outstanding talent among the diversity and disability segments from which you have not historically drawn a high proportion of team members.

This is not rocket science. But don’t doubt for a moment that it demands unsparing, and often painful, self-assessment on both a corporate and personal level.