Branding key to finding staff

Two smartly dressed young people were overheard discussing their dream place to work: "I'd give anything to work there," said the first emphatically. His companion replied: "I'm so keen I'd work for free if they'd just let me in the door."

In the current labour climate this is exactly how employers want to be perceived, but how is it done? How does a business develop a sought after 'employment brand' - an internal and external perception of the organisation as a great place to work? Slowly, say employment branding specialists, and from the inside out.

"A solid employment brand takes up to five years to develop, begins internally, and is lived out. People need to see the organisation can deliver on its promises," says Deb Loveridge, chief executive for HR and recruitment consultants Select Australasia.

Ingrid Waugh, manager human capital solutions for HR consultants Pohlen Kean, says employment perceptions take patience to identify and develop; Laurie Bunting, managing director for employment branding and recruitment specialists Swann Group, says an employment brand takes upwards of a year to establish because of the amount of 'below the waterline' work needed to identify internal values and ensure they are being delivered on.

"There's no point in trying to build an employment brand if you don't practice what you preach," says Bunting.

Employment branding is a dynamic, ongoing consideration that should be a budgeted item in the annual plan, say the consultants. Measurement and monitoring should occur through regular feedback and employee reviews, and brand strategy may need to change as a result.

If developing an employment brand is beginning to sound expensive, it can be. Employers may pay for initial perception analysis, internal surveying and consulting, external market perception samples and, depending on the size of the business, ongoing PR exercises and advertising and marketing campaigns.

Bunting says external advertising campaigns alone can start at around $100,000 a year, while Waugh puts the cost of initial diagnostics and perception identification at up to $50,000. There is also a significant internal investment required in terms of management and staff time as employment branding can mean changes to recruitment and induction processes, internal policies and employment packages and interview techniques.

Yet despite the cost and effort, international research indicates even employers with a strong consumer brand are interested in building a separate employment brand. Why? An uncomfortably tight labour market, the war for talent and the cost of recruitment. Strong consumer brands might sell goods and services, but strong employment brands attract people and make them want to stay.

"The cost of developing an employment brand is almost immaterial compared with the result which is the attraction and retention of good, long serving staff," says Bunting.

Waugh says the initial diagnostics of employment branding also deliver an immediate benefit.

"Employers get feedback on how they are perceived in the marketplace; that's useful for sales and marketing as well as recruitment and HR. There's also clarity about the kind of people who will thrive in the organisation and who will potentially," says Waugh.

Bunting says many employers find it advantageous to leverage their web channels for employment branding because the web has international as well as national reach. He says Counties Manukau Health piques the interest of potential candidates through its web site, invites them to register their details, keeps them regularly informed of career opportunities, and then contacts them if it needs to recruit.

"This strategy is actually managing the careers of candidates, and seems to work well," says Bunting.

It's possible for an organisation to have a neutral employment brand, say the consultants, or a poor employment brand but strong consumer brand and vice versa. Loveridge says New Zealand Police is a good example of an organisation with a negative 'consumer' brand but a good employment brand.

"Every external complaint is very loud because policing problems can cost lives. But internally, this is an organisation with good work/life balance support, internal counselling, relevant cultural ceremonies and references, and social clubs. It has good HR strategies, safety records and all the basics in place," says Loveridge.

Negative employment brands are built through having a poor regard for the environment and people, ignoring basic health and safety needs, and handling redundancies, exit interviews and dismissals insensitively, say the consultants.

Organisations with a great consumer brand but a lousy employment brand will waste money trying to attract and retain staff. Loveridge says the make or break for an employer wanting to turn a negative employment brand around is to listen to the people who work for them.

If an HR policy is introduced or altered as a result of employee feedback, employee cynicism flies out the window; people tell others they work for a great employer who listens to them.

Unfortunately, successful employment branding is challenging and employers usually need outside help to develop an ongoing strategy. Among the issues are deciding whether to concentrate more on internal employment branding and rely on word of mouth to spread the message externally, or to split resources between internal consultations and surveys and external PR and print media campaigns.

Loveridge says smaller companies without a recognisable consumer brand can reach a reasonable number of people externally through job advertisements, newsletters to customers and advertising or marketing campaigns that tout the employment brand. Conversely, large organisations may be able to skip external strategies due to the volume of people they employ.

"If you have 100 employees, it's a pretty safe bet your employment brand will reach more than 1000 people," says Loveridge.

Bunting says while word of mouth should not be underestimated, pushing an employment brand message through print media or a year-long internet campaign has particular benefits.

"It delivers the employer a database of individuals who have expressed an interest in wanting to work in the business, even if that is not now," says Bunting. He says employers who need to employ a lot of people - such as those in manufacturing, transport or fast food retail - need a strong employment brand to compete and may recruit between 300 to 500 people a year through strong employment branding alone.

Which brings us back to recruitment; an employer with a strong employment brand should have potential candidates it can contact, including past employees. Waugh says employers urgently need to understand recruiting and learn how to align an employment brand with HR practices.

Does every employer need an employment brand? If the type of work is alluring enough, maybe not - few airlines struggle to attract stewards and pilots. However, mainstream business employers trying to attract talented young things will need to get serious about employment branding, says Waugh.

"Talented people don't go searching for which organisation to work for anymore; they expect employers to be attracting them."

What the experts say:

Ingrid Waugh: Pohlen Kean: Vodafone; Microsoft; Merck Sharp and Dome; Works Infrastructure
Laurie Bunting: Swann Group: The Warehouse; Vodafone; Counties Manukau District Health; Works Infrastructure
Deb Loveridge: Select Australasia: NZ Police; GE Finance; Westpac; Mobil