TM - October 2007 - (Page 18) recruitment & retention assessment & evaluation compensation & benefits performance management learning & development succession planning define itself positively in the eyes of current and future employees has to be explicit about how it motivates and rewards its people, what kind of culture it wants to foster and the values it espouses and by which it lives. Perhaps the most famous demonstration of corporate values in the United States was how Johnson & Johnson handled the 1980s Tylenol-tampering incident. Although the company was not responsible for the tampering, which occurred after the product reached store shelves, it took responsibility and did what countless consumers would call “the right thing” — the company immediately recalled the product from the entire country, at a loss of more than $100 million, and created tamperresistant seals. The message was clear: “We value the lives of our consumers above all else, and we certainly care more about them than we care about our profits.” “Doing the right thing” not only saved the Tylenol brand, but it also did wonders for how people viewed the company — consumers rightly perceive Johnson & Johnson as a company that always acts with integrity. Not surprisingly, Johnson & Johnson also is perceived as an employer of choice. The company’s career Web site expresses the relationship between corporate values and the employment value proposition: “We share deeply rooted values that come from our credo. These values provide a unified vision for ethical behavior among our companies and their employees around the world. Explore what it means to be part of our credo-based culture and see how your values align with those shared by our employees.” On the opposite end of the scale, just about everyone has a view of the Enron employment brand, even without having worked there. The reported excesses and ethical lapses of Enron executives created a set of associations that defined the company’s employment brand. Of course, no company sets out to achieve a negative employment brand, but attracting and retaining talent is a much more difficult proposition when the employment brand is seen as weak or tarnished. Synergy with Consumer Brands from the aspiring athlete to many of the world’s finest sports competitors. According to the company’s Web site, “Nike does more than outfit the world’s athletes. We are a place to explore potential, obliterate boundaries and push out the edges of what can be. We aren’t looking for workers. We’re looking for people who can contribute, grow, think, dream and create. We thrive in a culture that embraces diversity and rewards imagination. We seek out achievers, leaders, visionaries. We love winners. At Nike, it’s about bringing what you have to a challenging and constantly evolving game.” It’s not necessary to go that far, however. Procter & Gamble, for example, is well-known for its popular consumer brands without defining its employees’ bonds solely in those terms. Rather, the strength of Procter & Gamble consumer brands is reflected in an equally robust employment brand of a great place to work. The company cares about its employees and their careers as much as it cares about consumers. People are treated well and have excellent opportunities to learn and advance. Thus, they and the business world in general view Procter & Gamble the employer similarly to how consumers view the company’s brands: as a leader with an excellent value proposition. Authenticity and Consistency A strong employment brand has to be real, not just sizzle without the steak — the company has to deliver what it promises. If a recruiter presents a company as appreciative of diversity and flexible in accommodating people with alternative needs (e.g., single parents), then new employees had better not report for work the first day only to be told they must be at their desks from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday, with a half-hour lunch from 12:30 to 1 p.m. every day. The cognitive dissonance would be massive, and in all likelihood, the new employee would begin to regard the company as untrustworthy. A corollary of authenticity and honesty is consistency of message across the enterprise. If Department A promises huge starting salaries, and Department B tells candidates they won’t make a lot of money at first but will be promoted quickly, and Department C says it’s all about flexibility, then these phenomena don’t add up to a consistent employment brand. On the other hand, if a company does have very distinct employment sub-brands (for example, one division is a new venture that requires entrepreneurially minded people, and the remainder of the company works in established business units according to long-held traditions), it is necessary to clarify and communicate those differences, as well as make sure candidates are hired and placed accordingly. The employment brand needs to be consistent with the organization’s consumer brand. Such a synergy produces motivated, engaged employees who are more likely to demonstrate strong productivity and provide excellent customer service. This, in turn, generates consumer loyalty, which positively influences corporate performance. Nike is a good example of the convergence between consumer and employment brands. Its Oregon campus is set up like a miniature sports facility that feels more like a camp for athletes than a workplace. It conveys a deep authenticity and connection between its workforce and product consumers — 18 October 2007 talent management magazine www.TalentMgt.com http://www.TalentMgt.com
For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.