London 2012 and corporate sponsorship

 

   Whoops - I've just remembered we're not supposed to use the words 'London 2012'  except as an official sponsor of the games, which clearly I'm not.

I have to say I find this slightly ridiculous - both London and 2012 are commonly used words and together could refer to many different things.  And it's just one example of rather heavy handed support for the games' corporate sponsors (another is the #wedemandchange movement).  It also seems particularly odd given the background of amateur involvement and spirit of competitiveness at the centre of the games.

.

.

PR Benefits?

 

I also wonder about the real value that the sponsors get from all this.  I can't say booking my tickets with a Visa card has made me any more likely to prefer this to Mastercard (and it's also annoyed many who had to take a new card for this particular purpose - and who will, I'm sure, promptly cut it up at the end of the games).

 

Similarly with McDonalds - though the value of the meals, even without the opportunity to 'go large', was considerably higher than the other outlets, and sort of made up for the mega queues.

 

While I'm on the subject - what planet is Panasonic on?  Having people wait 50 minutes for a very short 3D film of the opening ceremony interspersed with a dozen adverts for Panasonic, followed by an 'opportunity' to view their products, is NOT smart.  Coca-Cola does slightly better with their panel thing, but their estimates of the queue lengths are dismal.

.

.

.

.

I thought Cisco did a lot better than any of these - their Games Face device is a lot of fun, and you even get emailed a picture after the event.  Absolutely not in-your-face advertising like Panasonic, but much more likely to leave you with a positive impression of the company.  And not as extreme as building a 115m high sculpture / tower, though this was fun and provided a great view over the stadium and rest of the park - so thanks Arcelor Mittal - but I'd have put my £16m somewhere else.

.

.

Employee Benefits?

 

I suppose part of the benefits that sponsors are hoping to gain some from increased engagement of their employees.  This was certainly the argument put forward by BT, Sainsbury's and Kraft Foods in a session I saw called 'The Olympics as a Catalyst for People Involvement and Development' at the HR Directors Business Summit this year.

 

I, and I know a lot of other people, weren't convinced.  Wouldn't it just be a lot simpler, and certainly cheaper, to let staff take time off for Olympics events, perhaps have office parties / events linked to these, and otherwise work to increase motivation?

 

 

Other Benefits?

 

So if not these benefits what are the real reasons companies sponsor these events? Could it be anything to do with the opportunity for execs to get premium tickets for the most in-demand events perhaps?

 

Whatever the reasons, I'd like to see less sponsorship (and certainly less heavy handedness).  Of course, this would require a different model for running the games but perhaps that would be no bad thing - meaning no zil lanes for example.  That would require athletes to get themselves to events on time, just like the rest of us - and why shouldn't they have to do this?

 

One of the highlights of Danny Boyle's Opening Ceremony for me was the inclusion of the audience in the performance through the use of pixel tablets.  And I do love all the wizardry of the modern Olympics, but it'd be great to see a more broadly inclusive games - including letting everyone refer to the title of the games!

 

 

 

Technorati Tags: London, 2012, Olympic, games, corporate, sponsorship, PR, marketing, employee, engagement, inclusion

 

• Consulting - Research - Speaking - Training - Writing
• Strategy - Talent - Engagement - Change and OD
• Contact me to create more value for your business
• jon [dot] ingham [at] strategic [dash] hcm [dot] com

 

TRU London: Employer vs Employee Branding

 

    OK, so it’s day 1 of (TRU) London.  And I’m still waiting to co-lead a track on employer branding vs employee branding:

“Following on from the popular Recruiter Cast debate “Is the Employer Brand dead?”, this track looks at the issue of employer branding. How to stand out as an employer and how recruiters can use employer branding. Has employer branding is turning in to employee branding as a result of the social media explosion and the growth of the personal brand. Branding experts Nick Price, Michelle Fischer and Sarah White from the U.S. will be debating all the issues in this key area.”

 

I didn’t see, and have not been able to track down, the Recruiter Cast debate, but it seems to have been one that followed on from TRU London 1.  See Bill Boorman’s summary of his learnings:

“Employer brand no longer exists.

My thoughts on this after I had contemplated [Keith Robinson] @Siteadvisors question is that he is probably right. Social media opens access to all that is being said about an employer directly or indirectly, but most of what is being said is being said by the employees directly. (There are Facebook groups dedicated to this.) In my opinion, social media makes personal branding much bigger than corporate branding unless you are a giant in the Pepsi or Coke mode. Most of us aren’t. It’s key that you are listening to what your employees are saying about you. You can influence this by reacting appropriately, changing things and getting the right things said about you by the personal brands within your organisation. Employee engagement is key in this and has more to say about how attractive you are to potential recruits than the glossy websites.”

 

Bill then went on to do a further post, Employee Branded?, and a guest post on Mike VanDervort’s The Human Race Horses blog,  The Employer Brand Is Dead?

“ I again outlined my view that employer brand was now employee brand and that the issue  was that the employer brand was set by the employees and what they were saying on Facebook and other social media. Keith added his view that employee brand was much bigger than this and was the D.N.A. of the whole organisation from the board down.”

 

Gareth Jones then posted on his blog, Inside my Head: ‘Real time’ engagement – the employer brand dilemma…

“Social media does without doubt have a potentially huge effect on the employer brand but I don’t think we will see it turn into the “employee brand” as Bill suggests.  Nor will it become a ‘new role for HR’ as it’s already in the HR mix, and has been for many years.”

 

Gareth seems to accept that corporate / product brands have become ‘customer branded’, but doesn’t accept the case for employees:

“So will social media shift the balance of ‘brand power’ to the employee in a similar way to customers?  Well, as much as I would like to think so, I dont think it will because the customer and employee relationship are fundamentally different in two key ways:

1. Choice - If I take exception to the way Coke delivers the ‘customer experience’, there is always Pepsi.  Or some other brand pretender. Either way, I still get my cola fix. I can even buy a different brand everyday without impunity.  But I can’t do the same with employers.  Even the most talented and sought after can’t afford more than one or two ‘mistakes’ on their CV before the prejudice and hypocrisy of the recruiters cause them to start muttering about capability and poor judgement.
2. Bad can be good – some people want a house to be perfect when they buy it, others are happy to buy a wreck – simply because they see the potential in it.  As an employer crown slips, even if it falls far, it will eventually become a ‘turnaround’ situation or something similar and a different set of equally talented individuals will queue up to join.  However, if Tesco starts serving up putrid meats at the deli counter I’m hardly likely to keep on buying it on the basis that I can see an opportunity to make it better!”

 

Right, well I’m guessing that we probably won’t end up discussing any of this in the session today, even if it does take place, but if we do, what are my ideas?

 

Well, I agree with Gareth that there is a difference between the corporate / product and the employer brand.  But for different reasons.  To me, the key point is that employees talk to each other – and this means the environment is more complex, emergent, subjective, and less controllable, than the consumer one.

Now OK, the consumer environment has changed too, largely as a result of social media, which is why I think we’ve got to ‘customer branded’.  But in most sectors ,customers still don’t talk as much or as easily as employees.

So  what does this mean about ‘employee branded’?

 

This is how I think employer branding works (although obviously a more mechanical description than it really is):

 

Running through this from left to right:

• You need to start with a clear focus, a good idea of what the organisation is about (mission / vision / BHAG / strategy – or values / mojo etc – which provides the basis for Keith’s DNA)
• You need to ensure that this is translated into an employer value proposition (EVP).  This EVP needs to be developed to fit your employees, but it’s even more important that it supports your BHAG / mojo (which of course, should also be informed by, and developed through discussion with, your employees).  The EVP should also influence your employees ie you’ll recruit people who appreciate the offer that you’ll provide.
• You then need to deliver this EVP (or a tailored version of it) to each employee.  This is the difficult bit.  Firstly because the delivery is done by your line managers which you can’t completely control.  And also because delivery is down to your employees’ judgement about what has been delivered, ie its a relative rather than an absolute quality.
• It’s the result of the delivery of this EVP which provides the basis for your employer brand (with some ability to accentuate the positives and the direction you’re travelling in).

 

So how much of this do you control?

• BHAG / mojo: yes
• EVP: yes (although clearly you need to listen to your employees and seek to meet their needs)
• Delivery: not totally, but yes, to a large extent (even with social media)
• Employer brand: because of the above, largely, yes.

 

Net result - employer branding has still got my vote.

 

 

Technorati Tags: TRU London,unconference,employer branding

 

 

• Consulting - Research - Speaking  - Training -  Writing
• Strategy  -  Talent  -  Engagement  -  Change and OD
• Contact  me to  create more  value for  your business
• jon [dot] ingham [at] strategic [dash] hcm [dot] com

.

Beatty: 'CFOs: don't trust HR' and the Employer of Choice

 

   I've been tracking the HR blog discussions arising from the CFO.com article, Memo to CFOs: Don't Trust HR.  This described a presentation made by Rutgers professor Dick Beatty to a conference of CFOs, at which Beatty laid in rather heavily to HR.

I think these other bloggers' posts cover most of the criticisms I would make just fine, so I won't bother repeating them myself here.

However, there are a couple of areas in which I'd make slightly different points to other bloggers.  One of these is about engagement vs satisfaction, but I'm planning a short series of posts on engagement, so can deal with this then.  And another area is a response to Dick Beatty's point that  "while the language of organisations is numbers, HR isn't very good at data analytics".  Quite a few bloggers have pointed out that we're getting much better at this now, and I wouldn't disagree.  However, I think the bigger challenge to the sentence is that we should perhaps now change the language we use to manage our organisations.  But I've made this point several times before, for example, here and here (which interestingly dealt with some of the differences in perspective between HR and CFO).

So what I wanted to pick up in this post is Beatty's points about HR's "silly" idea that a company should try to be the "employer of choice":

"If you are the employer of choice, he asked rhetorically, who's going to be applying for your jobs? 'Everybody and their dog's brother,' he said. 'You want people who are excited, enthused, and understand how to contribute to what you do, as opposed to those who simply want to find a good place to hide out'."

 

I think this is just nuts.  Being an employer of choice has always, in the way I've understood it, being an employer of choice for the people you choose, or as Jim Holincheck describes it, the employer of choice - for top talent.

As long as we're referring to a particular type of talent here (the people with the values, competencies etc etc desired by a particular organisation), then I don't see how Beatty can argue against the phrase.

Being an employer of choice should be about being clear about what sort of organisation you're working in (its vision, values, big idea, mojo etc etc), and therefore what sort of organisational capability (human, organisation and social capital) you need, and then building your HR and management practices around this, allowing you to easily recruit, engage, develop and retain people whose own vision, values etc etc align with those of your organisation.

I actually think Beatty's probably arguing for much of same thing in the Differentiated Workforce.  So maybe his criticism is really directed at the way 'employer of choice' is interpreted in most organisations - few of which follow anything like the thinking or process that I've just described above.

Maybe he's got a point after all...

 

Technorati Tags: Richard Beatty,Memo to CFOSs,Don't trust HR,employer of choice

Photo credit: Morio

 

• Consulting - Research - Speaking  - Training -  Writing
• Strategy  -  Talent  -  Engagement  -  Change and OD
• Contact  me to  create more  value for  your business
• jon  [dot] ingham [at] strategic [dash] hcm [dot] com

  .

Kennedy Recruiting Conference / Adidas Employer Branding

 

    I didn't see that many presentations at Kennedy's Recruiting conference - the pull of the sunshine was just too strong.  But my favourite of those I did was from Steve Bonomo and Steve Fogarty at Adidas as this was a great combination of insight, perspective and practical experience.

Bonomo and Fogarty explained, referring to Frank Lane’s book, Killer Brands, that a brand enables a company to "derive a disproportionate amount of success… because of a compelling and differentiated expectation that comes to be associated with its name".

A true killer brand "will be chosen over competing brands—in any category, in any country, at any time, and often at any reasonable price" and its constituent elements include:

• Choice: every $ you spend or will ever make depends on choice
• Expectations: every choice that will be made depends on expectations
• Focus: is that single, differentiating factor
• Alignment: is connecting everything you do in perfect harmony
• Linkage: getting that focus, that expectation carried in the minds of your people.

 

The key to this is the 'differentiating factor' - to find something about your company that is different in your organisation from others / its competitors, and different in kind not simply in degree.  Bonomo and Fogarty recommended that people should "pull, grab, tear the essence of brand from your corporate bureaucracy and bring it to life!".

This can then be built, with design, simplicity and beauty into all relevant delivery mechanisms, eg job templates, recruitment posters etc.

For Adidas, the differentiating factor is the love of sport.  Someone asked a good question - that finding this differentiating factor is relatively easy if you're into spots, or are the US Army, or Cirque de Soleil, but more difficult if you're in transportation.

Like Bonomo and Fogarty, I lean to the view that although it may be more difficult, it will still be possible.

I think the differentiating factor falls out of an organisation's big idea, or BHAG, or what I think it often more motivating, an organisation's mojo.  As I've previously posted, I think this can come from something which is absolutely central to organisational strategy (like an interest in sport), or something which is a complementary focus to the main business strategy - something that will fit beside and support (if not drive) the strategy, but which will be more motivating for employees, eg corporate social responsibility (maybe the solution for the transportation firm).

Whatever it is, I also agree with Adidas, it needs to go way beyond the "canned speeches" organisations often use for this type of thing.

 

 

Technorati Tags: Steve Bonomo,Steve Fogarty,Adidas,Frank Lane,Killer Brands,employer brand

 

• Consulting - Research - Speaking  - Training -  Writing
• Strategy  -  Talent  -   Engagement  -   Change and OD
• Contact  me to  create more  value for  your business
• jon  [dot] ingham [at] strategic [dash] hcm [dot] com

'My Budget Day' - an opportunity for Employers of Choice?

Insurance provider AXA is launching My Budget Day later this month - a national programme designed to encourage all UK adults to commit one hour a month to sorting out their finances.

The company is calling on all UK employers to make a commitment to helping employees take control of their finances by giving them one hour off work each month to spend on personal money management. The company has pledged this to its 12,000 UK employees and is asking other employers to do the same. The initiative is supported by both the CBI and the UK's largest union, Unite. Personnel Today has also run a very favourable story.

There are certainly some potential merits in this initiative, for AXA, and any other organisations that choose to implement it.

Providing employees with time off to manage their financial affairs helps to show that AXA cares about its people and to position it as an employer of choice. It shows that AXA understands that work and life are separated only by a very porous boundary and that if staff are stressed in their non-work lives, this stress will percolate through into the organisation as well.

Life is certainly getting more difficult, complicated and more stressful and I think organisations need to recognise this.

I certainly understand the need for sound personal financial management - I've just had my report and accounts returned to me for more work by HMRC!

But other areas of life are complicated too. One of my main frustrations is the post office's new charging system. I am sure that as a nation, we waste more value standing in line to weigh and measure envelopes than the post office saves us through their own increased efficiencies.

So why are AXA focusing on financial management here? Because of the sector they are in, of course. And this isn't just about the PR benefits of this scheme. It makes a lot of sense for AXA to ensure that all of their staff spend time on their own financial management, just as AXA's customers must do.

But for other organisations, there are a lot of other areas they could focus on to show their staff they care. CSR / green initiatives in particular, are likely to resonate with staff at this time.

So while I support AXA's recognition of potential stress contagion between work and life, and their proactive actions to manage this, I wouldn't suggest that other businesses feel that financial management needs necessarily to be the focus of their energy to deal with these issues within their own organisations.

So my question is, what are you going to give your employees one hour off per month to do?