Wooing employees via Employer Branding

Gyanendra Kumar Kashyap

‘Times’ have changed; thanks to the demand and supply gap in terms of talent, organisations are investing millions in branding themselves as ‘employers of choice’…

Branding, as a concept as well as a technique to be on the top of mind recall, has primarily been associated with consumer products and services. However, given the dramatic changes in the workforce trends and immense competition in the labour market, organizations are applying the principles of branding to human resource management to create an emotional relationship between an employer and employee.

Employer brand, as it is referred to, is about capturing the essence of an organization in a way that engages current and prospective talent. An employer brand conveys the  ‘value  proposition’ ­ the totality of the  organization’s culture, systems, attitudes, and  employee relationship  along  with encouraging  people to embrace and  share  goals for success, productivity, and  satisfaction both on personal and professional levels. In essence, it is a differentiator that helps an organization differentiate itself from its peer by creating its branded factors as its USP (unique selling proposition) for employee satisfaction and happiness resulting in retention, productivity and efficiency.

Is employer branding therefore an indispensable strategy or a mere fad? Literature survey and reports in the media lends a belief that employer branding offers a fine blend of the science of marketing with the art of human relations management and is one of the strongest bulwark against the scourge of unbridled employee attrition.

The Building Blocks

         

What does it take to build an employer brand – one that is able to communicate and ingrain in minds of employees the most critical value proposition that their organization stands for and in effect help increase the likelihood of employees becoming brand ambassadors and advocates?

Invariably, Employee Value Proposition, EVP, is at the heart of developing and managing an employer branding. Employer Value Proposition speaks about the direct and indirect benefits of working with the brand. It also speaks about the core aspects of the association. EVP is influenced by the organization's values, culture, leadership, environment, and talent and reward programs. Once an organization’s EVP is formulated, it is then gradually integrated with the HR process to ensure delivery of the brand promise and consistent employee experience.

Like any other consumer brand that expresses inherent qualities and images, an employer brand too is representative of the corporate identity to its current and prospective employees, headhunters, and other stakeholders who get associated with the people side of the corporate. Hence it becomes all the more important to have a consistency between the internal and external aspects of employer brand. The internal factors are the culture, HR practices, and the overall employment experience that a current employee has. The external factors are what a prospective employee feels about the organization. Instances of inconsistency between the promises made to the external world with respect to what is happening internally can create conflict. The new joinees will expect what was promised through branding and the current employees on the other hand might feel cheated by the practices followed. Eventually, inconsistency in ensuring delivery of brand promise will leave both the current and future employees unhappy.

How can organizations ensure the delivery of brand promise as well as consistency of employee experience? Articles published in the media and other survey reports lend a perception that the key lies in communicating a set of unifying attributes that help employees in identifying with their employer. Organizations take concerted efforts to engrain them internally as well as externally. A few organisations have moved a step further; the EVP is incorporated in the internal and external communication, including the communication used in the context of lateral hiring and campus hiring. It enables them to attract the right profile of talent – who will be effective and highly engaged in their organization.

Organisations also use internal mapping and external brand image to chart out the important attributes that resonate with majority of employees to create its value proposition for its employees. There are others for whom the key constituents of employer brand are its set of core values – which includes open communication, generosity, and leading by example; and vision of the organization to build and sustain reputation. 

What do you communicate?

There is no doubts on an organization’s employer brand being a very important mode of communicating to the current and potential employees the position and value of a firm. The approach as to how an organization wants to ‘position’ itself is not a ‘one shoe fits all’ strategy. Depending on the industry, the life-cycle stage and the economic dynamics, the branding strategy can be different. For example, in the creative industry an employer brand typically aims to communicate the creative environment in the workplace and a fun place to work. A technology or a beverage brand has mass marketing campaigns. The employer brand in the professional services industry, however, targets professionals and not masses. The messaging in an employer brand in the professional services industry therefore is aligned to what professionals can relate to, such as the promise of developing technical expertise and longevity of careers.

Are you investing enough?

Though, the importance of building an incredible employer brand is beyond doubt, there is an investment that has to be made into developing and managing the brand. And thus the primary question: Are you investing enough?

Who is the ‘employer brand’ manager?

While there is no unanimity or even general consensus as to who should own the process of creation and execution of an organization’s employer branding campaign, it is a given fact that building a strong employer brand cannot be the sole responsibility of Human Resources or the Marketing department for that matter. As a matter of fact the entire philosophy of ‘employer brand’ has to be co-owned. The initiative must follow the top down approach, starting from the leadership at the helm and must include Human Resources, Marketing and Finance. In fact, everyone in the organization should be encouraged to take up the role of an ambassador of the brand.

How is the campaign propagated?

The success of any brand campaign, however brilliantly designed, to large extent depends on how well it is propagated, whether or not it has been able to reach its desired target audience. This becomes all the more critical when speaking from an organization’s ‘employer brand’ perspective; for the basic aim of the entire philosophy is to attract, retain and engage current and potential talent. There is no dearth of media vehicles to propagate its employer brand, however not all serves the purpose. Like a consumer product brand which has the leeway of resorting to ‘road blocking’; organizations use a similar concept when they reach out to campuses or job fairs or job sites – where they  can register their presence in the minds of the required target talent space.

In order to portray their organization as an employer of choice, organisations cite career website, word-of-mouth and social media as three top channels that their organizations invest in to promote their employer brand.

How do you measure effectiveness?

All organizations are different. There is no preset standard of measurements that suits every organization. But how does an organization measure the effectiveness of its employer brand campaign? From an organisation’s perspective it is important to measure the employer branding impact on individual productivity. For some a measure of a better employer brand would be the ratio of number of offers given to people to the number of people who finally joined. Examples of traditional metrics that have been used to measure ROI on employer branding activities include: cost per hire, engagement levels, time to fill, retention rates, turnover rates, absenteeism, headcount, time to productivity, total costs of labor to revenue, candidate satisfaction rates etc.

Conclusion

An effective employer brand in essence embodies all that the organization has to offer vis a vis what the employees expect from the organization.  Having an effective employer brand helps organizations attract, engage and retain talent. Studies show that having an employer brand significantly impacts savings by enhancing retention (reducing replacement hire costs) and engagement levels of new hires and existing employees. In an environment of economic uncertainty coupled with talent crunch, an effective ‘employer brand’ is perhaps a panacea to ride over the tide.

How to deal with erring star performers?

Gyanendra Kumar Kashyap

Star performers are the ones who surpass goals more often than not, are technically superior, are quick to grasp new organisational missions and have risen through the ranks by producing exemplary results.  However, a few of them have bad attitude, which if left unchecked can destroy the organisational culture and team. How do we handle such performers without losing them?

Yes, Gautam Gambhir and Virat Kohli besides being captains for their respective franchisee teams, Kolkata Knight Riders and Royal Challengers Bangalore, are undoubtedly star performers for their teams. While star performers prove to be an asset to the organisation, but like most superheroes, star performers too have a dark side and at times with their behaviour and attitude cause a problem. The 12 April, 2013 verbal duel that the two star cricketers engaged themselves in does raise a question or two about how to manage such star performers. The two players in question are highly talented and fiercely competitive; however the entire episode paints a picture that the two insisted on having their own way often contemptuous of others.

Cut the picture to an organisation, there are numerous examples of star performers who are arrogant, demand special treatment and absolutely no one wants to work with this individual. The failure to deal with such individuals or allowing them to have a free run, does have a negative impact on the cultural fabric of the organisation besides undermining the performance of the entire team in the long term.

Besides raising an ethical question, as such disruptive behaviour by star performers if left unchecked can run counter to the organisational values, the key question is - how should organisation deal with such star performers? Should the organisation retain the employee just on account of performance or should it take necessary measures to change the behaviour of such star performers? Those in the know argue that in both the cases, there is the probability of a backfire and the organisation can face the risk of losing their star performer. According to Peter Cappelli, Professor of Management at The Wharton School, the trade-off between talent and disruptive behavior depends on how important teamwork and morale are in the organization's culture.

Coming back to the above question, Tiziana Casciaro and Miguel Sousa Lobo – authors of the Harvard Business School study “Competent Jerks, Lovable Fools, and the Formation of Social Networks” contend most employees would rather work with someone less competent because that person may be more pleasant, more open to other’s ideas and more willing to share their own. They may even be perceived as more trustworthy. What if the organisation decides to change the behaviour – how should the organisation go about? A few suggestions (not exhaustive to say the least):

Hold the star performer accountable for performance as well as behaviour: Not holding employees accountable for their behaviour just because they perform well makes the company’s values meaningless.

Adopt a team based performance recognition system: Sometimes star performers walk away with all the credit for a job done well without acknowledging the contribution of others in the team. The star performers need to be gently reminded of the benefits of sharing credit when it is due. This will improve their relations with others in the team and also gain them their respect and admiration.

Focus on interpersonal skills: The star performers should be made to realise that developing interpersonal skills holds the key to good leadership qualities, which is needed along with technical expertise to reach the top.

Regular feedback: Erring star performers should be given regular feedback on how their behaviour is affecting others by both their supervisor and other team members; this will help them to modify their conduct. Coaching and counseling activities can be resorted to. Besides the 360 degree approach it is equally important to have direct feedback sessions with star performers so they know the exact consequences of not changing their behavior.

On Rankings: Do we need a new Ranking?

Gyanendra Kumar Kashyap

There is no dearth of players in the B –school ranking market, each claiming to be more authentic than the other; yet questions are often raised over the credibility of such rankings. Nevertheless year on year the list of ‘the most authentic ranking’ goes on increasing. Does a new set of ranking matter and if so what is it that makes it more credible & acceptable – a few questions…

Like it or loathe it, rankings are an integral part of business school world. Be it either the aspirants, or the influencer or the alumni – each one assesses the impact of the business school’s ranking in the global market. This is all the truer for the aspirants, for more often than not they rely on these rankings to shortlist their target schools.  Perhaps this must have been the guiding philosophy as to why, globally and in India too, a host of business newspapers and magazines started to rank MBA programs and the business schools that offered them. Ever since, media organisations have started ranking business schools using varying methodologies, looking at criteria including how schools select their students and how eager employees are to hire their graduates, student/faculty ratio, graduate and alumni salaries, number of full-time professors, tuition fees, notable alumni, infrastructure, library holdings, student satisfaction, and so on. However, there is considerable debate about the legitimacy of rating systems, specifically the various methodologies used to rank the programs. The critical question is: which ranking is the best and which one is the most accurate?

It is beyond doubt that glaring differences in rankings of B-schools, probably because of the varying weight-age assigned to various parameters, does raise questions pertaining to authenticity and reliability. Nonetheless, identifying a good B- school matters a lot in the long run and it is here that rankings at least have the merit of providing potential applicants with certain data that would otherwise be unavailable. In essence, rankings (though subjective and debatable) help candidates to sift through the huge amount of information available and the sheer number of institutions offering MBAs and select the few programs they wish to find out more about.

A few questions

Unfailingly and on an annual basis, a number of media organisations come up with their version of best B-schools; as such there is no dearth of B-school rankings. Thus the important question is: should there be yet another B-School ranking when there are already a multiplicity of these rankings studies out there? Is there really a need to add to the existing clutter of the profusion of B-School rankings out there in the marketplace? Will a new version of who is best and who is second best mean anything to anybody (read the influencers and potential applicants)? Add to this reports such as "B-schools and Engineering colleges shut down - Big Business Struggles," by The Associated Chambers of Commerce and Industry of India (Assocham) which states that more than 180 B-schools have already closed down in 2012 in the major cities  and another 160 are struggling for their survivals.  So will this new set of ranking help view B-school rankings in perspective and look beyond the stereotypical rankings; will it be elegant in its simplicity and profound in its methodology?

In essence the questions that seek immediate answer are - why do we need a new B-school ranking and more so how the new set of rankings will be an invaluable guide to each and every MBA aspirant in the country. What is it that will be its key differentiator?

Why the difference?

The inconsistencies in ranking and the movement of B-schools year-on-year on a particular league raise questions about the methodology and the lack of validation therein. The methodology of a few of the rankings is well-constructed, it takes into account parameters such as infrastructure, international exposure, quality of faculty, research, diversity, pedagogy, alumni, etc.; but it is either because of supply of sketchy data that questions the credibility of such rankings. Also more often than not, over reliance on reported data (i.e. lack of validation) is a cause of discrepancies.

How do you differentiate?

MBA rankings are hugely influential for graduates when ascertaining the degree of respect that employers hold for their business school, and subsequently their MBA degree. Consequently, a lot of MBA aspirants browse through rankings with a great deal of interest.  It is well known that methodology of each ranking is subjective in its choice of criteria, and that the difference between a school ranked 25th or 30th is probably not that great. An interesting question is how does a hiring manager choose a B-school – is ranking the most influential factor when identifying the school? What are the parameters that it chooses to base its decision on? Is it the student profile or the academic excellence of the institute that organisations consider more? 

Can money buy you motivation?

Gyanendra Kumar Kashyap

Research shows that pay ceases to matter if the employee has all the basic necessities of life...

For most of us, money is a fundamental reason to work because it is measureable and tangible. Hence, it becomes a motivator by default though it may not be the primary one for many employees. But, would we continue to do what we were doing if we were not compensated for our efforts? It is at this point that questions like ‘does money really affect motivation?’ crops in. Thanks to the complexity of human behaviour, there is no definitive answer to this question.

Daniel Pink in his book, ‘Drive – The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us,’ convincingly argues that money does not motivate people who work for us. Generally, people are more motivated to work harder when they have the ability to work on their own terms, he said in his book. This is not to suggest that money doesn’t motivate; in fact, to underplay the importance of money and benefits as motivation for workers would be a mistake.

The author states in his book that employees expect to be paid fairly, but over-paying employers do little to motivate them to work harder towards achieving company goals. In a similar vein, Entrepreneur quotes Ian Larkin, a professor of business administration at Harvard Business School, as saying, “Money is highly motivational for people… But saying money is the only thing we should use is also silly.” 

Be it the Expectancy Theory or researches conducted by psychologists like Daniel Kahneman, each one point out that money motivates only to an extent. According to the Expectancy Theory, money will motivate employees as long as their personal goals are being satisfied and the perception that their pay is dependent upon their performance. Kahneman said money does not increase people’s happiness after they have got all the basic necessities of life.

Timothy A Judge, an organisational scientist and his colleagues in their 2010 meta-analysis, “The relationship between pay and job satisfaction” published in the Journal of Vocational Behaviour, gave the most compelling answer to this vexed issue. The results indicate that the association between salary and job satisfaction is very weak. The reported correlation (r=.14) indicates that there is less than 2 per cent overlap between pay and job satisfaction levels. Furthermore, the correlation between pay and pay satisfaction was only marginally higher (r=.22 or 4.8 per cent overlap), indicating that people’s satisfaction with their salary is mostly independent of their actual salary. The findings are in sync with Gallup's engagement research (October 2011), which reports that there is no significant difference in employee engagement by pay level.

So does money demotivate? It’s a tough question and there is no consensus about the degree to which higher pay may demotivate. A few studies throw some light on this aspect. Edward L Deci, Professor of Psychology - University of Rochester, and others in their seminal work, ‘A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation’ conclude that tangible rewards tend to have a substantially negative effect on intrinsic motivation and even when tangible rewards are offered as indicators of good performance, they typically decrease intrinsic motivation for interesting activities. Similar studies conducted by Yoon Jik Cho, Assistant Professor – University of Georgia and James Perry – Distinguished Professor- Indiana University, Bloomington, conclude that employees who are intrinsically motivated are three times more engaged than employees who are extrinsically motivated (such as by money).

The meaning of money (and hence it being regarded as a motivator or demotivator) is largely subjective and our relationship to money is highly idiosyncratic. If companies want to motivate their workforce, they need to understand what their employees really value — and the answer is bound differ for each individual. Motivating employees solely based on money will indeed turn out to be a herculean task.

Mandatory CSR spending - a blessing or a burden

Gyanendra Kumar Kashyap

It’s a Rs. 120 billion question - Does it make sense to thrust upon CSR spending on India Inc., or should they be allowed to take a voluntary call on it…

In the new Companies Bill that was passed in the Lok Sabha towards the fag end of the winter session, it is precisely the Clause 470 of the Bill that aroused interest and skepticism in equal measures. As per the clause it has been made mandatory for corporates that make an average profit of at least Rs. 5 crore or have a worth exceeding Rs. 500 crore, or their turnover exceeds Rs. 1,000 crore in the last three years to spend 2 % of the net profit on CSR. It is herein that the debate on conscience versus action, heart versus mind and numbers versus results sets in. What is the worth of CSR kitty that the government decided to make it mandatory? A report by SMC Global Securities Limited states that in the last financial year the combined net profit of listed companies in India was to the tune of Rs. 4, 37,167 crores, at 2% the CSR kitty amounts to Rs. 8,700 crores.  The March issue of Forbes India categorically states that the government expects Rs 63 billion to flow in from India’s top 500 listed companies, going by the government’s 2% norm. If this list is further expanded to the top 1,000 corporations, add MNCs, co-operative banks and SMEs, and then we are talking about at least Rs 120 billion. Undoubtedly such a large sum generated year on year has the potential to alleviate many social as well as environmental issues ailing the nation.

While there may be an overlap between philanthropy and CSR, Indian corporate led by Tatas and Birlas have been voluntarily investing in CSR. Hence, the provision to make CSR spending mandatory is more of an intrusion and it is apparent that by doing so the government is trying to abdicate itself of its social responsibilities. Will not the mandatory provision disrupt the business plans of a many companies? Going by an ETIG research, India Inc will have to scramble to meet the target as only two companies in the Nifty - Ambuja Cement and ITC - currently spend 2% of net profit towards CSR. While not all Tata group companies have disclosed their expenditure on CSR, Tata Steel's sustainability report mentions that the Tata group companies spend 4% of their net profit towards CSR. In fact, the new imposition takes out the sanctity of CSR making it more of a forced exercise and more so a new form of tax on profits.

Does it not make sense that corporations take up social responsibilities on a voluntary basis rather than making it mandatory? Those in support of the move argue that by mandating CSR in the Companies Bill, the government has created a process whereby companies are forced to spend on social returns along with financial returns and they are forced to report on such spends. Such a mandatory provision, however noble its intentions may be, could lead to irregularities in revenue accounts and perhaps more corruption. The other point worth considering is will not the mandatory clause give government officials a strong tool to harass companies. Jagannadham Thunuguntla, Strategist & Head of Research, SMC Global Securities Limited, says “While the objective behind CSR is noble, but proper system and procedures need to be implemented for effective usage of such massive amount. Else, there is always a risk of misuse of noble intentions.”

Is there a way out? There are a few who argue that if the government wants, it can increase the rate of corporate tax to 32 percent from the current 30 percent rather than making it mandatory for companies to spend 2% on CSR. According to media reports, a number of companies are lobbying for tax breaks on CSR investment.

While reporting CSR spends in their annual reports and making it public is a measure of good corporate governance, enforcing spending on CSR would perhaps not motivate companies to become more socially responsible. In essence CSR should be done with passion and dedication, and not because it is thrust upon. 

How to make a good impression in the exit Interview?

Gyanendra Kumar Kashyap

Don’t use the time and space to retaliate or get emotional, rather consider exit interviews as an opportunity to make one last good impression...

It’s that time of the year, when a number of organisations see a lot of old ones’ giving way to the new faces. No matter how wonderful an organisation is, it is but inevitable that at one point or another, an employee will quit or will be asked to do so. While this can be unfortunate - or fabulous, depending on the person and the circumstances; the turn of events that follow the decision can be a learning experience for both. The secret lies in exit interview. On the one hand it gives the organisation an inexpensive and valuable opportunity to collect data, devise policies to improve employee retention and nurture a culture that values employees input; on the other had it teaches the employee a few lessons on how to make a smooth exit. A few suggestions for the rookie’s as to how to go about the exit interview:

Don’t burn bridges

The most important rule of all, ‘Don’t burn your bridges!” Irrespective of the situation at your job, it is best advised to take the high road and leave things on a positive note. Do not use exit interview as a platform to retaliate or get overly emotional. As far as possible make your comments constructive and ensure that you include the positive parts of your time in the organisation. You just never know what the future holds in store and honestly you may need a reference from this former employer.

Be honest, give constructive feedback

If you are asked for a feedback, don’t hesitate. “Being truly honest will hurt and offend,” says a good friend, who has had his own share of experience. However, it is important to know that recommendations (constructive feedback / possible solutions) and not rants are appreciated. While sharing meaningful dialogue with the former employer is good, keep the conversation short and sweet and that will indeed help you avoid revealing too much and digging yourself a hole.  This will help set a positive tone and prevent you from leaving people with an unfavourable impression of you that could tarnish your professional reputation.

Post a positive outlook

Treat, exit interview as an opportunity to make one last good impression. Show that you are positive about the future but at the same time communicate in clear terms that you harbor no negative feelings toward the organisation.  Emphasize more on what lies ahead and use that as the fulcrum to stress the reason as to why you are quitting (if this is the case). This serves a dual purpose, it saves you from having to say anything at all about the job you're quitting, and it helps you stay honest, too.

Ensure that you make a smooth exit, and once you do so, the negativity (if you harboured any) will fade into the distance. It is only then that you can put all of the positive energy where it belongs - into your new job.