In today’s highly competitive market for talent an employer’s brand is critical. To be effective the organization’s image must appeal to the people it most needs to attract, satisfy and retain. Winning a “Best Employer For ___” award that is bestowed by a neutral party can polish the brand. Having a reputation for valuing employees and treating them like critical assets can also serve as a magnet… who wants to be where they are not appreciated?
Workforce management practices that have been shown by research to be effective are likely to be something that an employer should consider. Yet some practices that are commonly used have been found to negatively impact the ability to get and keep the desired workforce.
- Being a serial upsizer – downsizer. Although a city park district may employ twice the number of people in the summer than in the winter the staffing level fluctuation may be an economically sound practice. Lifeguards are not needed at pools that are closed. As long as staffing variation is justifiable and understood it does not have the negative impact that over hiring followed by termination cycles do. Amazon raised salaries and paid hiring bonuses so the demand escalation associated with the pandemic could be handled. When the short-term surge ended it was necessary to cut staffing levels. The people hired and then let go might have been told that employment would be contingent on sustained demand, which would lessen their claim of mistreatment. But human nature is such that many thought their contributions would exclude being terminated.?
- Overselling opportunities to candidates for employment. Gallup research found that realistic employment previews are the most effective deterrent to unwanted voluntary turnover in the first 1 – 2 years. REPs are simply telling the truth. Providing an accurate and complete portrayal of what should be expected and what is likely to happen during employment inoculates candidates against the appearance of undesirable aspects of the role and the organization. It also begins the employment relationship on an honest basis. Recruiters and interviewing managers are subjected to temptation to do a sales pitch when there is a desperate talent shortage.?
- Failing to ensure new hires and current employees understand how their contributions are/will be measured and rewarded. “Onboarding” sessions tend to cover policies and procedures to help employees know what is expected of them. Knowing when a new hire will be eligible for a specific benefit is helpful, but the most important topics are those that are relevant immediately, such as the performance management system and the compensation system. A statement like “we pay for performance” must be accompanied by a description of how the organization ensures contributions will be rewarded equitably, competitively and appropriately. Otherwise, it is just another slogan, such as “our people are our most important asset.”? Employees who look to their manager or peers to answer questions may each get a somewhat different answer. Those turning to policy and procedure manuals get the same answer but may still wonder how the process plays out with respect to them.
- Failing to demonstrate a commitment to fair treatment by defining the factors used to administer performance management and pay systems. Much of the concern about pay equity today is due to a lack of knowledge about what should and what does determine individual pay rates. Aggregated statistics like “Company A pays its male employees 15% more than its female employees and white employees 18% more than its non-white employees” are meaningless and say nothing about pay equity. There is widespread confusion about whether pay parity or pay equity is the objective. Organizations can help to cut through the rhetoric in the media but taking a position on what drives an employee’s pay rate. Three factors should impact pay: 1. The value (internal and external) of the role an employee plays, 2. The person’s competence relative to role requirements, and 3. The person’s sustained performance contribution relative to performance standards. Personal characteristics are irrelevant and allowing them to impact pay is both unethical and illegal. Once these principles are stated the organization must display an adherence to them.
- Failure to engage with all constituencies to explain both the “what” and the “how” the organization seeks to fulfil its mission. Private sector organizations that are publicly traded need to satisfy their investors that they are on the right course leading to the right destination. Boards serve as the intermediary between resource providers (e.g., investors, taxpayers, or contractors) and management. The members must use a balanced perspective when serving the two parties. The CEO of Costco was criticized by investors for paying higher wages and providing benefits to more employees than the other warehouse retailers. When the CEO defended the practice by showing it cost less than what high turnover cost competitors the Board was able to support the strategy. When a city, county or other governmental agency is accused of providing excessive employee benefit packages it must justify it to the citizenry, since they are funding the organization.
An employer must brand itself effectively, just as a provider of goods or services must brand their products to customers. One distinction is that there is a moral aspect of employing people. Nike “Swoosh” brand suffered an attack from the pubic when it was discovered its foreign subcontractors were using unfair and illegal employment practices. Even though Nike had been unaware of the practices and had mandated such practices be eliminated, the public relations impact was harmful and fell on Nike.
If employees are subjected to unfair labor practices or suffer from discrimination, the employer is accountable. It is often difficult to detect situations where managers vary from policies to get things done. How an employer reacts when it discovers values are being compromised will have an impact on its brand. Culture will influence behavior when it is clearly defined and there are consequences associated with adhering to or varying from how things should be done. Investing in analytical assessments of what occurs and using them to conduct continuous evaluations of adherence to what is intended is a way to protect the employer brand.
Robert Greene, PhD, is CEO at Reward $ystems, Inc., a Consulting Principal at Pontifex and a faculty member for DePaul University in their MSHR and MBA programs. Greene?speaks and teaches globally?
on human resource management. His consulting practice is focused on helping organizations succeed through people. Greene has written 4 books and hundreds of articles about human resource management throughout his career.
