Tài liệu Corporate Reputations, Branding and People Management 30 docx

Best Companies to Work for in the UK. Another British organ- ization prominent in these exercises is the Great Place to Work ® Institute, which has compiled data from the USA, Europe and the UK to develop a Trust Index © survey and benchmarking against the ‘100 Best Places to Work in Europe’. For some organizations, following an employer of choice strategy means little more than more sophisticated and sensitive recruitment practices, such as improving recruitment design, online recruitment, sensitive induction, retention analysis, cafe- teria compensation and benefits, and ‘growing your own’ talent (Ahlrichs, 2000; Konrad and Deckop, 2001; Tarzian, 2002). For others, it means a new, more contextually sensitive, version of the old-style, relational psychological contract in which long- term commitment from employers, demonstrated through the organization’s goals, values and trust initiatives, is matched by high commitment and low turnover or separation rates from employees. As we have already discussed, such a psychological contract is characterized by highly competitive remuneration and benefits, often including elements of contingent pay, inter- esting, challenging and varied projects, a commitment to training and development tailored to individual needs, flexible working arrangements and a motivating work environment. The UK-based ‘Best Companies’ organization is one of the most sophisticated examples of employer of choice approaches (Leary-Joyce, 2004). This organization runs an annual competi- tion, sponsored by the CIPD, the UK-government Department of Trade and Industry and The Sunday Times newspaper. Its mis- sion is to help improve the quality of employment or workplace relations through its discussion forum, benchmarking trend analysis and competition, and research of good and bad HR practices. Their annual survey is based on validated survey data of 180 000 employees, factor-analysed to produce the following eight criteria on which employees believe to be the most impor- tant in influencing their experience of work: ■ Quality of leadership – how employees feel about the head of the organization, senior managers and the extent to which they identify with the company’s val- ues and principles ■ Direct supervision – feelings about and communica- tion with their direct manager 274 Corporate Reputations, Branding and People Management ■ Opportunities for personal growth – feelings about training, career development and prospects ■ Well-being – feelings about work stress and pressure, and work–life balance ■ Team and colleagues – feelings towards their immedi- ate colleagues and how well they work together ■ Giving something back – feelings about their organi- zation’s positive impact on society ■ Engagement with company – the level of engagement employees have for their job and organization ■ The deal on pay and benefits – how happy employees are with their pay and benefits. These are all factors that would typically figure highly on any- one’s list of good practices and reflect much of what we have argued for in this book. It is interesting to note, given the focus of much of Chapter 9, that both the Best Companies and Great Place to Work ® Institute have included among their criteria the CSR agenda, with the former having ‘giving something back’ as part of their list, while the latter has special awards for CSR. Both are also keen on the nature of communications being a two-way, responsive, dynamic dialogue. The Great Place to Work ® Institute even has a special award for companies that establish a ‘Whistleblowing Friendly Culture’, which encourages employees to speak up to power. This consultancy-driven recipe for an employer of choice strat- egy is reminiscent of the best practice work of Pfeffer (1998), dis- cussed in Chapter 5, and his more recent calls for dialogue and community in organizations. Contrary to the ideas associated with the evolutionary, market-based perspectives on strategic HR (e.g. Cappelli, 1999), which advocated changes to a new, employ- ability contract, Pfeffer made it a central element of his argu- ment that employment security provided the necessary table stakes for implementing other high performance work practices. He reviewed a number of studies showing the negative conse- quences of downsizing, including important connections between downsizing and negative impacts on organizational perform- ance, with strong, negative correlations between high employee turnover and positive assessments of customer service, the latter of which is a vital factor in establishing and maintaining strong brand identities. If downsizing had to be undertaken, Pfeffer Chapter 8 Corporate communications and the employment relationship 275 agued that it could be accomplished sensitively and sensibly, retaining the morale of those surviving and minimizing the impact on the company’s image in concurrent and future recruit- ment campaigns. In 2005 the list of UK-based companies that ranked in the top ten were Nationwide Building Society (financial services), ASDA (part of Wal-Mart’s retailing group), KPMG (business consulting and financial services), Carphone Warehouse (mobile communications retailer), Cadbury Schweppes (food and drink manufacturer), Compass Group (contract caterer), Pfizer (phar- maceuticals), Severn Trent Water (utilities) and W. S. Atkins (engineering consultants). There are similar lists of the top 100 medium and small organizations, including many public sector, voluntary sector and services companies. In 2005 the list was headed by W. L Gore, the Gore-Tex manufacturer, St Ann’s Hospice, Beaverbook the Jewellers, Pannone, a legal firm, Data Connection in computer software and Sandwell Commu- nity Caring Trust, personal care and support – a varied array of organizations. Like all best practice approaches, however, they ‘fail’ the test of differentiation, discussed at length in Chapters 5 and 6. Huselid et al. (2005) produce two telling scenarios that make this point graphically. The first is the existing narrative of most employer of choice policies, which run along the following lines: we wish to communicate to potential and existing employees this is a great place to work, providing extensive benefits to all, including security, career devel- opment and good pay, for which we are well known. As a consequence, we attract lots of people to apply and few ever want to leave. Huselid et al.’s argument is that such a strategy results in little differentiation between good and poor performers, attracts people who are less interested in performance and more inter- ested in benefits, attracts too many people for HR to make good judgements about their worth and ‘locks in’ poor performers by over-compensating them. The results are that the organization provides some people and groups with what they don’t deserve, while under-rewarding ‘A’ performers, who may leave. In the long run, they contend, employer of choice policies are a poten- tial recipe for bloated, unresponsive, mediocre organizations. In its place, a strong case is made for a more differenti- ated, talent management-based narrative, based on employee 276 Corporate Reputations, Branding and People Management self-selection: an employee of choice rather than an employer of choice message. The communications storyline recommended is as follows: we are not an employer of choice because we don’t want high numbers of unsuitably qualified applicants that increase our selec- tion costs; nor do we want people staying if they don’t perform and we make this clear in the operation of our performance management poli- cies. Instead, we wish to communicate that this is a high performance culture, requiring high levels of ability, motivation and effort, for which people will be rewarded. Not everyone will be able to match our requirements, so only apply if you are able to meet these exceptional requirements. This is a very different message, but the question remains: is it one, if taken to excess, that could result in an Enron situation? In other words, to return to the point of the Paragon case in Chapter 5: can organizations overrate talented people? Perhaps the answer lies somewhere in between employer of choice and employee of choice strategies. Which, in some respects, is why employer (or internal) branding has become so popular in recent years. Employer branding These ideas are the ones that most obviously have brought marketing into HR; when HR specialists are asked to think about their links with marketing, inevitably, but myopically in our view, they will use the term, ‘employer branding’ or a vari- ation on that theme. We say myopically because, as we have argued throughout this book, there is much more to the cross- over between the two functions than employer branding; never- theless, the ideas associated with this new approach to HR are highly relevant and practical. As we have suggested, over the past few years the concept of employer branding has certainly entered into the lexicon and practice of HR specialists, particularly as a result of consultants such as Versant in the US and People in Business in the UK offering ‘toolkits’ to engage employees by creating compelling employee value propositions. Perhaps the most extensive study to date of employment branding is the US Conference Board’s Chapter 8 Corporate communications and the employment relationship 277 work (Dell and Ainspan, 2001), which surveyed and undertook follow-up interviews with executives in 137 major US companies. This research found that employees were becoming a much more important target for corporate image-makers, although they did not necessarily use the term ‘employer branding’. Forty per cent of respondents reported using the methods of corporate branding in their attempts to attract, retain and motivate employ- ees. A further, unpublished study by the Economist in 2003 showed high awareness of employer branding among HR specialists, especially in brand-conscious American and Asian companies. Europe, however, was not far behind. We have presented at a number of practitioner conferences in the UK since 2003, at which a host of other organizations in the private, public and voluntary sectors have given their versions of employer branding. To name only a few: Virgin, Vodafone, British Gas, Nationwide Building Society, Diageo, Reuters, the Royal Mail, Standard Life Investments, Ealing and Westminster Councils, the London Stock Exchange, the Crown Prosecution Service and Cancer Research. In addition, case study evidence has reported a fast-growing interest among continental European companies, such as Nokia, Philips, Siemens, Saab, Fiat and Deutschebank, in the idea of employer or internal branding (Bergstrom et al., 2002; Sparrow et al., 2004). So, taken together, it seems that European companies are following the lead of American companies in this direction. Employer branding has been defined as the ‘company’s image as seen through the eyes of its associates and potential hires’, and is intimately linked to the ‘employment experience’ of ‘what it is like to work at a company, including tangibles such as salary and intangibles such as company culture and values’ (Ruch, 2002, p. 3). Like the minimalist version of employer of choice, much of the content of employer branding programmes is often little more than the communication of the internal, HR equiva- lent of the ‘marketing mix’ – attraction, recruitment, motivation and retention (see Table 8.2). For example, Mitchell (2002) has set out three marketing principles and five communications messages for ‘selling the brand inside’. Table 8.2 compares examples of practical advice from the consulting literature, most of these expressing similar senti- ments to the advice in Box 8.3 on p. 281. 278 Corporate Reputations, Branding and People Management Table 8.2 Comparing employer branding advice MacKenzie and Glynn (2001): Govendik (2001): Engaging Ruch (2002) (Versant Bergstrom et al. (2002): Ten recommendations for employees to define Consulting): Guide to Why internal branding communicating an employee the brand building loyalty in your matters: the Five Cs brand organization Get consistent – build a layer of a Find the company from within, Assess your company Clarity: know what the few key messages that can be by surfacing the brand image culture, using the cultural message is that you want to reinforced by facts through the eyes of employees elements survey send depends on: Recognize what is not part of the Create a brand vision and brand Construct an appropriate ■ Knowing your internal message to be communicated attributes or values that will ring employer brand identity audience intimately true with brand ambassadors that can be marketed ■ Deciding on the language externally and internally and symbols that are the ‘face’ and ‘voice’ of the brand Understand the key moment of Roll out the brand by compelling Develop an employer brand Commitment: Building truth in the recruitment process, employees to understand the promise, which describes consensus around the brand especially the point at which people brand, their responsibilities in the value proposition to through shared understanding would accept an offer. Make this as making the brand live and by employees and on-going education, early as possible getting them excited and which is woven into the life engaged in the brand roll-out of the brand Know what’s compelling about the Gain employee buy-in through Develop an employer brand Communications: Use communi- organization, especially for high consistent education and training voice, a tool for ensuring cations that employees approve performers consistent communications of. Leaders have to be involved; with associates high frequency; multiple channels; and attention to detail for consistency of message (continued) MacKenzie and Glynn (2001): Govendik (2001): Engaging Ruch (2002) (Versant Bergstrom et al. (2002): Ten recommendations for employees to define Consulting): Guide to Why internal branding communicating an employee the brand building loyalty in your matters: the Five Cs brand organization Understand the ‘brand promise’, Reinforce key brand attributes Implement the brand Culture: Understand the particularly which elements are by giving employees first crack of promise, using the brand culture so that you can non-negotiable the whip in giveaways, gifts, etc., voice and integrated anticipate resistance, and use associated with the roll-out of communications tools techniques that will help the brand people buy into the new story Work with employees to ensure Define the brand as part of the Measure the employer Compensation: Offer a strong that there is consistency in the organizational culture by creating brand effectiveness, using payback to those who story a constant stream of stories and a specially constructed deliver the brand events designed to support the index in key areas such key brand attributes as recruitment, retention and motivation Design collateral information to make the truth compelling Ensure that intermediaries have the same story and work on your behalf Do not allow any intervention to pass without reinforcing the message of the employment brand Ensure that your internal change efforts are in line with your emerging employment brand Source: Adapted from Martin and Beaumont, 2001 Table 8.2 (Continued) Chapter 8 Corporate communications and the employment relationship 281 None of this work is particularly new and likely to take HR specialists in a direction they were not already travelling. However, our understanding of the application of marketing techniques to HR is getting more sophisticated. Two recent contributions demonstrate this progress, one from academia, another from the consulting world. US marketing academics Miles and Mangold (2004, 2005) have developed a model of what they have called employee branding, which, in some respects, resembles our introductory framework in Chapter 1 (see Figure 8.2). They have applied this model to the case of Southwest Airlines (see Box 8.4), which is well known for its use of sophisticated HR techniques. Box 8.3 Selling the brand inside (based on Mitchell, 2002) The marketing principles are: ■ Choosing the moment: capitalizing on critical receptive contexts for change, usually when a fundamental revisiting of the values, direction and structure of the company is taking place. ■ Linking internal and external marketing: ensuring alignment in the messages internally and externally, enabling employees to deliver on the external message and ensuring that the external message is a credible one with employees. ■ Bringing the brand alive for employees: creating an emotional con- nection between employees and the brand by drawing on key values and attitudes of different segments of the labour force and extensive participation in the design and roll-out of the employer branding messages. The five communications messages for selling brands are: 1 Don’t preach, but listen to employees and use their language. 2 Emphasize beliefs rather than intentions, because beliefs capture the brand essence and are more inspiring to employees. 3 Make the medium part of the message, using surprising and innova- tive media rather than the traditional presentations. 4 Design material fit for purpose; this broadly refers to ease of use. 5 Have fun, because humour goes a long way in carrying a campaign. Organization’s mission and values Desired brand image Source and modes of communications Internal Formal HRM systems Public relations/internal communications systems Informal Cultures and co-workers influence Leaders and managers External Formal Advertising and PR Informal Customer feedback Employees’ psyche Knowledge of desired brand image Psychological contracts Employee brand image Outcomes Position of organization and its offerings in customers’ minds Turnover Employee satisfaction Customer satisfaction Customer loyalty Favourable reputations Figure 8.2 The employee branding process (adapted from Miles and Mangold, 2005). Chapter 8 Corporate communications and the employment relationship 283 Box 8.4 Employer branding in Southwest Airlines Southwest Airlines in the USA is one of the most quoted cases of best practice in HRM and it should come as no surprise that it has won many practitioner awards, one of the most recent being for employee brand- ing (note the change in terminology they used). Miles and Mangold (2005) have produced a full account of this process, which we have sum- marized to give a flavour of good practice in this leading-edge case. The cornerstone and distinguishing feature of Southwest Airlines is its corporate mission and values framework, based on ‘dedication to the highest level of Customer Service delivered with warmth, friendliness, individual pride’ and ‘Company Spirit’. Interestingly, Miles and Mangold, who are marketing academics, suggest the foundation of this mission is that employees come first because it is they who deliver exceptional levels of customer service. The constant transmission of the mission and values is a key success factor in external and internal communications, and in the organiza- tion’s success. First, it helps create the desired brand image, which is the message that it wants its customers to receive, and one which The definition they apply to employee branding is ‘the process by which employees internalize the desired brand image and are motivated to project the image to customers and other organizational constituents’ (2005, p. 535). Their model is essentially prescriptive in stating that the organization’s mis- sion and values are the starting point for understanding and implementing a brand image. This image has to be conveyed through a range of internal and external, formal and informal communications media to shape employees’ understanding and psychological contracts. Most of the usual qualifications apply concerning the nature of communications, including the coherence and credibility of the message and medium, and the need for leaders and managers to act as they say in rein- forcing the message. The qualifications fit well with our strate- gic narrative approach. The resulting employer brand image will lead, they argue, to a range of favourable outcomes, includ- ing positive organizational reputations, customer loyalty and satisfaction, positive brand and organizational positioning, employee satisfaction and turnover (see Figure 8. 2). . Box 8.3 on p. 281. 278 Corporate Reputations, Branding and People Management Table 8.2 Comparing employer branding advice MacKenzie and Glynn (2001): Govendik. more differenti- ated, talent management- based narrative, based on employee 276 Corporate Reputations, Branding and People Management self-selection: an