This August marks the golden anniversary of my working life.
In 25 years, I’ve had 10 different jobs working for 4 different organisations.
None of these organisations ever had an Employee Value Proposition (EVP) or an employer brand.
Yet recent research by CIPD and Melcrum http://bit.ly/bO8v0i uggests that 9 out of 10 organisations have an employer brand. I must admit I don’t get it, and I’m not alone, the same research shows that only 10% of employees understand their employer brand. So what does the report recommend to increase understanding?
HR can use the firm’s internal marketing and/or
press department for ideas on how to sell the
brand and engage individuals.
My blood is starting to boil. Why? 3 fundamental things wrong with this statement
(1) It implies HR own the brand
(2) It implies that brand needs to be sold to employees, not owned by them.
(3) It advocates that HR ‘USE’ the internal marketing/PR department as messengers.
OK, maybe 4 things – I do hate using the expression ‘firm’ to describe an organisation.
It just raises more questions.
What happenend to joined up thinking? What’s driving it all? Why do organisations want one or think they need to define one? Is it all about the war for talent? Where did it come from? Is the heartland for employer branding recruitment advertising? or reward & recognition?
Well if you look at the suppliers working in this field they tend to be recruitment advertising agencies or marketing services consultancies, therein probably lies the answers.
In conclusion, the CIPD/Melcrum research assrets that your organisation’s benefits package needs to be aligned with your EVP, closing the gap with what you promise and what you deliver to your employees. Elementary, my dear Watson. (or no shit Sherlock)
But how do you measure success? According to the report you should take into account customer satisfaction as well as employee satisfaction to ensure alignment between the internal and the external brand.
It’s refreshing to hear thinking that is aligned to business outcomes, but I’m still confused abut the concept of a seperate internal and external brand.
It all leaves me with two big questions –
(1) Surely organisations need only one brand? (that’s a rhetorical question)
(2) Can anyone help me understand this?