Living the Brand at Abercrombie & Fitch

On what has turned out to be a very long journey back from Chicago to Scotland, I found myself killing time in a New Jersey mall after an unplanned ovenight stop at Newark Airport. I chanced to go into Abercrombie and Fitch's store, by far the most popular in the whole mall as far as I could tell. For those less familiar with fashion retailing, A&F is a top casual luxury American brand popular with young college students, so I'm not really sure what I was doing in there. Just a few hours later, I was amused and interested to read in the airport lounge at Newark a BBC news a story about A&F in London, which has just been found wanting in its application of its employer brand. A young, highly qualified woman, Riam Dean, had been 'forced to work in the stockroom after wearing a cardigan to cover her prosthetic arm'. The industrial tribunal which heard her case 'is satisfied the reason for the claimant's dismissal was her breach of the 'look policy' in wearing a cardigan. Throughout the hearing A & F's London flagship store management claimed they had an inclusive diverity policy.

A couple of points emerge from this case. The first is just how important decisions taken by a local management team can impact on a brand. This item was number three in the national UK news, and may result, like the charges levelled against the Gap and Nike a number of years ago, in costing this company very dearly in terms of reputational capital. The second, slightly more subtle point, is that it illustrates the problems local managers have in interpreting the different strategic logics discussed in previous posts. I can well imagine an agonised discussion/debate taking place either in the head of the manager who took the decision to put the girl in the stockroom, or maybe between a group of managers/ supervisors in the store over the logic of distinctiveness (most fashion brands feel the need to have their staff 'live the brand' in terms of their appearance) and the logic of legitimacy.

At 3.00 am this morning my colleagues who were also stuck in the airport with me (Continental Airlines certainly did not live up to its brand claim for satisfied customers) were debating the merits of sustainable management and corporate social responsibility. Our sleepy conclusions were that new standards of legitimacy will probably win in the end in spite of the edicts of Milton Friedmann on the unitary role of business, forcing firms to become more ethical in their approach to doing business. Not easy to square, but firms like A & F had better eat some humble pie to recover their reputation in the UK at least for being a 'cool brand'.

Linking Employer Branding to Strategic HRM and Customer-based Reputation

I'm working on a couple of projects just now, which require me to focus on some of the problems involved in employer branding in multinational environments. I've also just finished an enjoyable exercise acting as a judge on Personnel Today's employer branding awards, which has caused me to reflect on the criteria for assessing and measuring the impact of employer brands. With both of these projects in mind, there are a couple of good sources of material that may be worth looking at if you are working in this field as a reflective practitioner ( I've got a few people in mind when writing this blog) or academic. One source I've written myself with Susan Hetrick ( I'm saying this is good but I'm not really the best judge of that); another is in the recent edition of the British Journal of Management. These works are written mainly for academics in the field but are accessible and useful for those who want to get beyond the usual homilies or lack ofevidence-based practice that characterised much of the employer branding literature.

Our piece is entitled 'Employer branding and corporate reputations in an international context' (pages 293-320) and can be found in the new 'bible' edited by Paul Sparrow on 'Handbook of International Human Management: Integrating People, Processes and Context' published by John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, UK, 2009. This chapter sets out a model of employer branding in an international context and illustrates some of the problems of negative capabilities associated with 'thinking global and acting local' using a case from the financial services sector. In the case we argue the need for authenticity in employer branding to favour the local rather than the current fashion for global. More of this in later blogs, because this issue gets to the heart of strategic HRM and employer branding in international contexts, the subject of a forthcoming paper by myself, Paul Gollan and Kerry Grigg.

The second extremely useful source is an excellent if somewhat parsimonious attempt to provide a theory of customer-based reputations (C-bR), written to explain the basis on which customers attribute positive reputations to companies and what such reputations lead to in terms of important outcomes. The paper by Walsh, Mitchell, Jackson and Beatty in the British Journal of Management current edition and the core argument is that customer satisfaction and customer trust in the organizations drive positive (and negative) customer-based reputation attributions. In turn, C-bR causes customers to be more loyal (CL) and to produce high levels of customer advocacy through word-of-mouth (WM). The authors show highly significant links among these variables, especially among C-bR and its consequences for CL and WM.


I'm sure I can learn from this parsimony in two ways, largely because my own attempts to explain the causes and consequences of employer branding are so complicated and cannot easily be tested. The first way is to ask the question: what are the workforce and HR antecedents or drivers of customer satisfaction and customer trust? This is likely to lead us into a refinement of the logic of the 'three compellings' from the Sears service-profit chain, a favourite example of many who wish to demonstrate links between satisfied employees, satisfied customers and profits. So, you might expect that employee satisfaction, employee commitment and employee engagement might by related in some way, together with the authenticity of the employer brand, to drive trust in organizations and their leaders (see CV Harquail's application of authenticity to personal branding for an idea of where I'm going).

The other use of this model is to translate the variables into employer branding language. So, you might expect that high levels of employee satisfaction, commitment and engagement, and high levels of trust on the part of employees in the organization and its leaders may drive Employee-based reputation (Eb-R). In turn high Eb-R is likely to result in key outcomes such as employee loyalty/ intention to remain and to word-of-mouth advocacy of the organization, the latter of which is so important to our current project for the NHS.

Although this line of reasoning has been pursued by Gary Davies and Rosa Chun from Manchester Business School in a number of recent articles, the ideas from the Walsh et al paper do suggest how their work could be developed.

When I've worked through some of these ideas a little more, I'll put these up for consideration in a further blog.

Employer Branding: Back in the News Again

I'm sure there's a strong element of selective perception on my part, but I think that employer branding is back in the news again. This product of three related forces - the talent wars, willing producers in the form of marketing consultants who sought to extend their reach and expertise internally and willing consumers in the form of a receptive HR and communications audience seeking a new twist on and language of 1980s culture management - has been hitting the HR press and conference circuit with some force. At one level this may surprise sceptics and protagonists alike, especially those that saw employer branding as synonomous with recruitment and the 'buy' solution to HR strategy. Getting talent in the door and fresh blood to stimulate new ideas was (and still is in some cases) the defining order of the previous decade and a half. However, as I've been suggesting on this site, the 'make' solution to HR problems - motivating, developing and retaining good people - has usually been the most cost effective and sustainable strategy for many organizations (though not all and not in all circumstances!), which I'm glad to say has now become the focus of employer branding.

My comments are made in the light of an excellent article in this week's People Management on 'Employer branding still makes its mark', a recent CIPD panel discussion, a surprisingly well attended Employer Branding Summit on March 10th run by Symposium Events, and insights into the content of future events on employer branding (including, plug, one of our own with the IES in Glasgow on April 16th). All of these have stressed and will stress the importance of employer branding.

To borrow from the CIPDs Rebecca Clake's comment in the recent PM article, 'Budgets are under pressure, and its now that HR needs to demonstrate that it is true to its principles...you will need to work hard to look after the people who are leaving and the ones that remain to retain a good impression of how good an employer you are' (People Management, 12th March, 2009, p.13). I'm going to leverage these excellent sentiments by suggesting it is not only HR that needs to demonstrate its principles but the boards of organizations and senior leadership that have bought into the employer of choice message, because it is they that will carry the can for raising expectations and failing to fulfil them (NHS trusts and boards may wish to take note because of their desire to promote themselves as employers of choice). This also works in reverse: some organizations' boards have over-promised on expectations and over-fulfilled them, usually through high bonuses and and increased pay. This privileging of extrinsic rewards, as research by Deci and others suggested quite a few years ago, may have led to people who previously believed in the value of intrinsic benefits as a source of motivation to now focus much more on pay, bonuses and other extrinsic benefits than in the past. These changes apply to industries as different as financial services and healthcare. In short organisations' performance and reward management policies may have taught people only to well about the values of material benefits, and to criticise people now for being greedy is to criticise them for being good students of perhaps misguided organisational policies.

I also suggest that working hard to look after people internally has always been and will continue to be a key focus of employer branding, in part because it is the signalling cues given out by informal recruiters and existing employees that act as the most important influence on prospective candidates (and yes organizations are still recruiting, up to 40% of them according to a recent survey by Taleo). It is also because through the web use of existing and ex-employees - social networking, blogging, reputation management ratings and media sharing sites, etc - many people will come to understand 'what it is like to work here'.

Even more important, however, organizations have had to work hard (or should have done so) over the past two decades to re-establish the trust that employees once had in those that delivered on old-style, relational psychological contracts in return for a willingness to go the extra mile. Much of the solid evidence on commitment to work (though not some of the consulting based engagement surveys?) shows a long term decline: as people are getting materially richer (or were), they are getting less satisfied with work, perhaps having learned the lessons of 'employability' and the 'cash-nexus' only too well.

The CIPDs panel discussion was particuarly illuminating because it brought together leading practitioners, consultants in the field and the odd academic to debate employer branding's future. The key lessons from that debate was that it does have a future, mainly as suggested, in engaging staff and presenting positive images of organizations for the future. It also has a future in helping drive the innovation agenda through building collaboration and enhancing employee voice (my kite to fly). Where that future lies is in creating a delicate and dynamic balance (the graphics equaliser metaphor was invoked brilliantly to explain this) between corporate employer branding and segmented value propositions, and in producing evidence that it works. More on this debate will come from the CIPD themselves.

On this last issue of evidence, one of the best presentations at the Employer Branding Summit was Graham Dietz and Tom Redman's academic contribution which demonstrated an association between external employer brands and some key HR outcomes (Graham, if you read this send me the paper and I will summarise on the blog). Studies like these are much needed, though they need to go beyond cross sectional work into predictive measurement. I was also impressed by the insights of Daniel Kirk from Lambie Nairn on the future of reputation rating on the web and the potential impact on employer brands, and a case study of Diesel by Tim Pointer, which had important lessons for the creative industry and fashion retailing sector. Three others which were presented by communications specialists, Phil Weare, Ian Humphries and Jill Tombs, interestingly head of HR and governance, all focused on the need to create internal awareness of the employer brand and align it with the corporate brand.

Of all the cases presented, however, it was the journey currently being undertaken by the BBC to create and employer brand - solid, well research and creative, this presentation by Madeleine Abdoh and David Roberts has lessons for all. Which brings me neatly to our forthcoming event on April 16th in Glasgow, where David will be speaking. So, if you get the chance, come along to this event in the Hilton Hotel, and look out for the CIPDs next event on employer branding on May 10th.

Management 2.0, talent and employer branding

Following up on a post on Authentic organizations by CV Harquail a few weeks ago, I've just come across an excellent article in Management Today (January 2009, pps 50-54) by Simon Caulkin. This short piece has got me thinking about a presentation I'm going to do next week on employer branding. In some previous work, I've been suggesting that the talent management agenda, which was at the heart of firms' desires to brand themselves, is still an important driver, though in a changed form - less concerned with celebrity and individualism and more concerned with building social capital and trust. Caulkin's summary of some work by Julian Birkinshaw and Gary Hamel at the LBS Management Lab and Hamel's recent book on the Future of Management puts some flesh on my arguments and will help re-orient them a little.

To summarise the article, the recent crash has been 'an astounding market failure' (Birkinshaw) and a result of management 1.0 with its focus on incentives, self interest, neglect of risk management and trust relations, all tied to the dominant shareholder value model of the 1980s onwards and the corporate financial models developed and taught in business schools which privileged financial engineering over general management (e.g. Efficient Markets and capital asset pricing). Organizations have been treated as markets for the last thirty years rather than as fulfilling important social functions in society, a business philosophy associated with buying and selling of companies at the drop of a hat, the rise of wealthy individuals and private equity as an dominant ownership model (see Peston's book on Who Runs Britain and some of the later essays in Michael Lewis's collection on 'Panic: the Story of Modern Financial Insanity'), outsourcing, downsizing and, importantly, attributing success to talented individuals, paying them exhorbitant salaries to keep them happy and granting them enormous tax breaks. Nowhere has this been more evident than in financial services, which is why Britains Chancellor of the Exchequer Alistair Darling is seeking to tackle this 'culture' problem as he defines it as a necessary prelude to getting the economy working again. Caulkin cites the growth of M & A activity and the recent but enormous impact of the financial services sector on the British economy, which accounts for around 35% of economic activity now as opposed to 10% thirty years ago, so squeezing out the so-called real economy. Until very recently, it was a case of tails wagging dogs, with managers having to respond to the demands of deal makers, powerful individuals and hedge funds.

Citing Sumantra Ghosal's 2006 article that business schools have been teaching too much self interest and not enough ethics, Hamel and Birkshaw have moved to 're-orient management from compliance to creativity, from flogging efficiencies out of existing resources to generating new ones', from zero sum management to positive sum games. In short, the call is for management 2.0 to focus on innovation and stakeholders rather than costs and shareholders (for a better insight, you might want to read Rakesh Khurana's brilliant book on the transformation of American business schools).

What management 2.0 looks like is detailed in an HBR article (cited in an earlier post) resulting from a conference held at Half Moon Bay, California, in May 2008. This brought together some of the leading managers, thinkers etc in the field. The consensus was that companies needed to articulate a purpose beyond making money (higher values), to ensure distributed leadership and strategy-making (rather than the traditional top-down model), fostering community and citizenship and building trust - none of which are new but speak to the legitimacy dimension of the corporate reputations agenda I've been banging on about for the last so many years.

So what do companies that currently embrace management 2.0 have in common. First, an emphasis on higher values rather than seeing managers as merely hired hands to serve market purposes. Second, to avoid the formulaic thinking imposed by business schools and mimetic, unreflective behaviour of firms; doing things differently and doing different things are the order of the day - the innovation agenda. Third, governance based on internal values and risk assessment needs to be internalised (which is the UK Chancellor's message, the message of prudent banking put out by prime minister Gordon Brown, and the message of our recent chapter on HR's potential contribution to governance). Fourth, the restoration of trust among key stakeholders, a return to the old style pluralistic conception of managers holding ring of competing claims made on the business? Fifth, a preference for old style instrinsic rewards rather than the appeal to greed of recent years (Deci's warning over the perils of extrinsic rewards, and Maslow and Hertzberg revisited? - the longer I'm in this game, the more I see old wine in new bottles and the consequences of yesterday's solutions causing tomorrows problems).

And what does this mean for employer branding, corporate reputations and HR? As we have argued in some recent work and presentations, the talent management agenda is still an important driver but the focus should be as much on social capital and social legitimacy as human capital. I'm also more convinced than ever that employer branding and talent management has to address the innovation agenda and the creation of intellectual capital in organizations. It also has to address the need for surfacing employee voice and challenge to ensure that powerful interests do not dominate in ways that stifle innovation and lead to excess, which is a tall order for those brought up under a management 1.0 regime. So how do we create EVPs and employer brands that achieve these laudible but sometimes competing aims to simulataneously integrate and differentiate?

Recession-proofing Employer Branding

What future for employer branding seems to be all the rage just now in the current recessionary context. The CIPD are developing a conference on this topic in May, which I've been invited to speak at (thanks Anita and Rebecca and hello from down under). As luck would have it, I was doing a presentation yesterday with two colleagues in Sydney - Paul Gollan and Kerry Grigg - for a mixed audience of practitioners and academics, where we outlined some thoughts on this issue plus a future for employer branding that we're currently working on. I'm not the best judge, but I think it went down reasonably well, so the drift of the presentation may be worth sharing with some of the readers of this blog.

The core of my argument and of a new paper we're writing is that employer branding is recession-proof in the sense that it was never only or mainly about talent wars/ talent shortages caused by bouyant economies, though recruiting talented people was and will remain an important driver. Part of the presentation yesterday was that the four drivers of employer branding and its impact on corporate reputations are still relevant in todays recessionary economic circumstances - the need for talent in knowledge economies and knowledge intensive organizations, the long terms demographic problems faced by most economies, the long term decline in employee identification with employers and decreasing levels of trust, and the rise of idiosyncratic careers built around individuals rather than organizations. What has probably changed over the past decade is that employee expectations of good employers have been slowly ratcheted up by organizations engaging in practices such as employer branding/employer of choice schemes from which they will find it difficult to disentangle. Yes, organizations may not be recruiting so much, particularly in financial services, construction, retailing and manufacturing, but the impact of how they cut costs by laying people off and how they continue to create positive internal images for existing employees (particularly those currently being blamed for the mess we're in) will continue to have a major impact on their corporate reputations.

By corporate reputations, I'm referring to some really big ticket issues - corporate branding, corporate governance and corporate social responsibility - which require deft handling to manage the inevitable tensions between the needs of organizations to be simultaneously different through corporate branding and legitimate ( or the same) through the exercise of good governance and social responsibility. In many respects, these are, or should be, the key drivers of strategy and the endgame of good people management. Having just finished reading Robert Peston's excellent book on 'Who Runs Britain', which is an insightful guide to the complex financial engineering 'rocket science and crude incentivization that has been at the heart of the current problems, I'm more convinced than ever of the need for HR and employer branding to address these issues.

However, there is another agenda that places techniques like employer branding centre stage and that is the innovation agenda. We've been writing quite a bit about this recently, but to cut a long story short, good evidence suggests that innovation relies less on investment in human capital (talented individuals) and more on social capital (creating bonding and bridges or social networks) and organizational capital (what's left when people walk out the door at night, e.g. structures, systems, processes and technology etc). If advocates of employer branding and the HR function wants to make an impact, addressing the innovation agenda (wealth creation) in knowledge economies by ensuring that such innovation is socially responsible and well governed (ie. risk managed) is the place to be. Our argument is that employer branding has much to offer in this direction - by helping create the necessary diversity of talent, social capital and social networks needed for innovation. But such branding will only do so if it is authentic and is rid of much of the brandwashing and marketing/communications spin with which it has become associated. And this is where Web 2.0 comes in - these tools have enormous potential for surfacing authentic and challenging employee voices in organizations as well as facilitating collaboration and networking beyond conventional organizations boundaries, both of which are drivers of organizational learning and innovation.

Not everyone agreed with these arguments, so it may be worth a discussion either on this blog or at the events such as the ones that the CIPD and ourselves are running with the IES.

The Changing Context of Employer Branding

This post is prompted by a number of initiatives we're involved in that deal directly or indirectly with the changing context of employer branding (EB) and HR (see next paragraph). It is also prompted by direct communication from a colleague who has just posted an item on 'reverse employer branding' on http://authenticorganizations.com/. This post is definitely worth reading because it points out that the reputation of 'toxic' firms can spillover to their employees, so making them less employable in the future because of their association with the unethical/inept practices of their leaders. This must certainly be a worry to those employees/managers in some of the major UK/US financial institutions that have had to be rescued or allowed to collapse over the last few months.


To return to the initiatives we're lucky enough to be part of (and do a bit of advertising for the Centre), the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development has just promoted two important initiatives in this field. The first is their 'Shaping the Future' programme, the Scottish edition of which we are launching with them in Glasgow on March 27th with a working lunch for an invited group of HR directors to consider the future of HR in the current economic conditions. The second is an advisory board established by Rebecca Clake of the CIPD to examine the role of EB research in the current recessionary context. In addition to these initiatives, we're also running a one day seminar we're running with the Institute of Employment Studies in Glasgow on EB in changing contexts on April, 16th.


So what does all of this activity add up to? Well, all will have to re-visit EB with a critical hat on because it was largely a product of the talent management agenda and employee shortages of a few years ago. For some people, EB and recruitment were almost synonomous. Therefore, what is the future for EB when talent management takes a downturn?

A few months ago I posted some thoughts on that issue following a series of seminars in Australia, to which I still adhere no matter how deep the recession bites. However, I'm working with two sets of colleagues in Australia and Canada on different projects that may have something more to say about this question. The Australian project, with colleagues from Macquarie (Paul Gollan) and Monash (Kerry Grigg) and supported by ADCORP and other organizations, is examining the impact of EB not only on the talent management/human capital agenda, but also on the creation of social capital (creating strong organizational identities and creating strong bridges/networks among people) and organizational capital (e.g. Web 2.0 - our CIPD report on this comes out in a few weeks). Surprisingly, some excellent research has shown that both of these forms of capital have more of an impact on innovation than human capital/talent. The Canadian/British project is a new book I'm editing with Ron Burke and Cary Cooper on Corporate Repuations for Gower. A key focus of this book is on managing reputation risk, which leads me back to the opening comments on reputation spillover and reverse employer branding. The more I think about this issue, the more important I think it is to investigate. So thanks to CV, the author of Authentic Organizations, for raising this issue. Any comments, experiences, examples would be greatly appreciated to help inform our events and research.

Why Organizations Succeed and Fail: A Corporate Reputations Perspective

For those of us interested in why organizations succeed and fail from a reputation management perspective, one of the books of the year is 'Taking Brand Initiative: How Companies can Align Strategy, Culture and Identity through Corporate Branding'. This book is especially timely because it helps explain important elements of the current crisis of financial services, and also helps us explain some of the problems being experienced in healthcare. The book's authors are two of the best academics in the field - Mary Jo Hatch and Majken Schultz. They have produced a practitioner-oriented work that should be read by all HR, corporate communication, marketing and strategy professionals. The book is based on an ongoing research programme and ideas that first saw the light of day in an article in the Harvard Business Review in 2001, material which we used in our corporate reputations, branding and managing people book. It is also based on an edited book written mainly for academics on organizational identity.

Using this lens and a theory of organizational identity, they restate their well-known idea that organizations should constantly work towards aligning their vision (for being different and legitimate), their image (or reputations among key stakeholders) and culture (how employees and managers think, feel and act) for corporate branding to work and for organizations to be sustainable in the long run. They cite many examples from their own research and the work of others to demonstrate the validity and usefulness of their model, as well as draw on a considerable body of sound theory that should give some comfort and to practitioners and academics alike. Though they don't use financial services companies as examples, their analysis, especially of organizational narcissism, should be required reading for banks worldwide, a line we took in a case in our corporate reputations and HR book questioning the future fitness of the financial services industry in 2006.

Some of the key messages of this book are as follows. First, the 'most successful corporate brands simultaneously communicate belonging and differentiation...' (p. 21), a simple but powerful message that applies to private and public sector organizations, including our current work on the health service which is faced with major difficulties in attracting talent in the longer term, in enaging its current employees and in having a lack of image among employees for being a patient-centred service. They argue that organizations which are able to manage the tensions between integration and differentiation, one of the key paradoxes in business, do so by conducting continuous identity conversations with employees, customers and other stakeholders to create strong organizational identities. These conversations attempt to reconcile the fundamental and ongoing questions of 'who are we' as an organization with 'what is their image of us'. The attendant identity dynamics often result in two different but related dysfunctional states - hyper adaptation and narcissism. The first of these is where organizations are over-reactive to what customers and the media (and sometimes employees) think of them, so they continuously search for 'coolness' and 'cutting edge' instead of having regard for their unique heritage and core competences. The second is where organizations fail to check their internal beliefs against what stakeholders, including employees, think. This is often associated with narcissistic, charismatic leadership, protected from reality by group think, which attributes past success to their own insightful decision-making rather than the often favourable contexts in which such decisions are made - the so-called fundamental attributional error. The limitations of charismatic leadership and problems of narcissism, the subject of a brilliant book by Rakesh Khurana, was behind Enron and other corporate governance distasters, and in also being used to explain the failure of many of our financial services firms in the UK and USA.

A second lesson concerns the valuation of brands (and by implication employer brands). They make an important point in highlighting the limitations of brand valuation models, which, among other problems, ignore the emotional and symbolic effects of brands. As recent research has shown, these are the two most important factors in making employer brands attractive to outsiders and engaging for insiders. To gain real insights into (employer) brand value they argue that brand equity and consumer research models are more appropriate because the uncover and account for symbolism and meanings through ethnographic research into how people (employees) interact with brands and qualitative research into the meaning that brands hold for them. Which is what we have been doing in the health sector in Scotland as a complement to large-scale quantitative research.

A third lesson that is especially important for HR is the nature of the endgame. Long terms effective and sustainable corporate branding is what most organizations are striving to achieve to remain successful. This requires organizations to go beyond (1) first wave branding, which is based on a marketing mindset and is dominated by marketing/communications departments, and (2) second wave corporate mindsets, which attempts to bringing together multifunctional teams of mainly internal stakeholders, but typically ends up being fragmented by incompatible models and mindsets. Instead they posit a third wave notion of enterprise branding, which is an interfunctional and and integrated way of bringing together internal and external stakeholders in the extended entreprise in constant cycles of identity conversations. They also flag the importance of Web 2.0 tools in conducting such conversations, a key message of our recent CIPD research in the field. This imagery of dynamic enterprise-wide conversation cycles is a particulary powerful one because it extends the notion of the corporation and gets us away from the typical brand 'programmatis', which is premised on the artifical notions of beginnings and ends of change. For HR, it also reminds us that employer brands are not the endgame but are merely an input into a continuous conversation of how organizations can remain successful.

The book is not without its shortcomings. In tantalising us with the notion of enterprise branding, I don't think they go far enough in fleshing out what this may look like - maybe they want us to write what we want into this open space? They also seem to misinterpret employer branding to mean recruitment, when it is usually taken to apply to both the attraction of new employees and engagement (read identity management) of existing employees. However, these are minor points and should not detract from an important book which should be read by for all practitioners, particularly chief executives and HR directors, interested in this field.

The Dangers of Branding Leaders (and Roy Keane)

Julie Hodges and myself are in the middle of writing an article on leadership branding, so I was intrigued by a recent post on the Australian HR online magazine (5th December, 2008, HR Daily), which appeared with the headline ‘Strong CEO brand improves candidate attraction and retention’
Citing a study by Minolta in Australia, ' Richard Branson (Virgin), Bill Gates (Microsoft) and Steve Jobs (Apple) are the business leaders Australian workers are most inspired by. Westpac CEO Gail Kelly was the only Australian CEO to make the top five list. Workers were also asked to identify which of the world's biggest companies they would most like to work for. Google topped the list, followed by Microsoft, Virgin, IBM and Apple. Locally based banks Macquarie ANZ, Westpac, followed by BHP Billiton, a mining company, ranked sixth, eighth, ninth and tenth respectively.

This headlining of leaders is further testament to the notion of ‘celebrity firms’ being tied up with celebrity leaders. Violina Rindova, and her colleagues in a 2006 article in the Academy of Management Review entitled ‘Celebrity Firms: The Social Construction of Market Popularity’ argued that a celebrity firm is developed from the media’s search for organizations that symbolize important changes in society by taking bold or unusual actions and which attempt to create distinctive identities. These firms are natural targets for ‘dramatized realities’ created by the business press. Google is one such firm that has become one of the most widely discussed success stories in the business press; also Apple whose products define the industry standard.

Most of the business press coverage focuses on the founders. For example, Google is often reported by referring to Larry Page and Sergey Brin. An Economist article of January 2006 portrays Page as the ‘visionary geek-in-chief', pronouncing at software conferences on the range of new products that will help Google achieve its ambition to ‘organize all the world’s information’. The storyline portrays the firm’s celebrity through Page’s missionary fanaticism, claiming that visitors to Google feel they are in the company of religious zealots rather than ordinary employees. Much the same story could have been written for Apple in the 1980s and, to a lesser extent, for Virgin over the last decade or so.

Though employees and the business press may feel the need to put leaders on a pedestal because of their requirements to find simple solutions to the complex problems of explaining why firms (and football teams!) are successful, are there dangers in doing so, and in having a corporate brand so closely linked to celebrity leaders?

My answer is yes. Much of the academic evidence points out that senior leaders don’t have a major impact on organizational performance. For example, Jeff Pfeffer and Robert Sutton claim that the hard evidence shows the impact of leadership on performance are modest under most conditions, strong under a few conditions, and absent in others. ‘Studies from leaders from large samples of CEOs…, university presidents to managers of colleges and professional sports teams show that organizational performance is determined largely by factors that no individual - including a leader - can control’ (‘Hard Facts, Dangerous Half-Truths and Total Nonsense’ p.192) Like a number of writers in this field, they also point to the dark side of leadership – narcissism, ruthlessness, group think and risky decision-making by people believing themselves to be all powerful. So, is it better to have leadership brands that are less reliant on powerful individuals and more on distributed leadership throughout the organization, i.e. build organization systems and brands where the actions of powerful and skilled individuals matter least. And should leaders act more wisely by knowing when to get out of the way so others can make contributions?

My own football team, Sunderland, provides a dramatic recent example of the problems of celebrity and wise leadership. Roy Keane, its talismanic manager, was over-loaded expectations by success-starved supporters seeking ‘instant pudding’ and a sports press always on the lookout for celebrity stories. Keane acted wisely by resigning when there were no calls for him to do so. He rightly expressed his self-doubt that no sane person could live up to such expectations (and implicit leadership theory –see earlier post) and resigned in as low key a manner as he could. Good for him and a lesson to other leaders (and firms seeking to brand themselves on the basis of individual leaders).

Employer Branding in China

On the last leg of a marathon, which has finished in Beijing. I'm the guest of a joint venture between our centre in Glasgow and a newly established, practitioner oriented research centre in Bejing. The Cente for Employer Branding and Reputation Management is a collaboration between Peking University (the number one university in China), Zhaopin.com (one of the largest recruitment consultants in China) and CCTV, which produces the 'Best Employer in China' awards. Such a coming together of big brands in China is testament to the emerging interest in this concept (somewhat similar to Australia in last blog), as was the three hundred or so HR executives, graduate students and staff who turned up to a conference on the subject where I gave the keynote speech and received a visting professorship from Peking University.


The Chinese project is being led to my long time colleague, ex-PhD student and co-author, Dr Hong Zhang, who is currently editing a book on employer branding in China, due out late next year. My impressions from meeting with colleagues are that employer branding and reputation management are concepts that will take root in this most complex of societies. There are two reasons underlying this prediction. The first is the concern with image and identity, which, according to colleagues, is a major issue with employers in China. Consulting report after consulting report lists image and reputation as major pre-occupations of Chinese CEOs. Part of this interest seems to be a result of a lack of confidence among Chinese companies, and part is due to the second reason - the talent management agenda.


Talent management - attracting, retaining, motivating and engaging people - still remains a major issue in the big cities in China, despite the downturn in economic growth (accurate statistics on this issue are not easy to come by). A recent McKinsey report on talent management in China seems to support this impression, which is also the belief of my new colleagues in the Centre. I'm based in an hotel located in a science and technology centre next to the two big universities in Beijing, which has every big technology company in the world resident on its huge science parks. These companies require talented people and the Chinese universities cannot put them out fast enough; nor can they deliver the right levels of quality to turn this country into the knowledge-based economy in aspires to. As a consequence, Chinese companies are beginning to operate in global labour markets for talent, and its shows. Compared to my first visit fifteen years ago, the number of non-Chinese working over here has grown enormously, so much so that they have begun to locate themselves in the equivalent of 'gated communities'.


This new venture has plenty of interesting questions to ask of employer branding and talent management, and I look forward to helping them.

A Great Week with Australian HR Professionals

I've just spent a spectacularly enjoyable and informative week with more than 250 HR professionals in Australia in Melbourne, Brisbane and Sydney as a guest of ADCORP, one of Australia's largest marketing and communications firms. ADCORP specialises in employer branding, and during the course of interaction with their consultants and clients, it soon became apparent that they do some very good practitioner-oriented research and creative work in this field. As part of their programme to support their clients and to learn more about what academics have to say about these issues, they asked me to lead a number of sessions on employer branding and on other HR-related issues I'm currently researching, e.g. strategic leadership, Web 2.0 etc.

From these sessions, a number of items re-occurred. These are worth summarising for the people who attended because they and others may have better answers to the questions than I do.

The first is something we wrote about in 2003, when we produced the CIPD's first research report on employer branding: 'What's in a Name'? There is no doubt that, in some knowledge-based, professionally dominated, industries - healthcare, professional services, consulting engineering and education, what's in a name really matters. This was confirmed by a number of discussions, during which branding was seen to connote spin and anti-professionalism among key managers and professionals. On this issue, my argument has been for some time that the notion of reputation management is more likely to appeal to internal stakeholders in certain companies/ industries and probably more accurately reflect what the process is about - underscoring legitimacy in external and internal labour markets for good governance and leadership, ethical practices and CSR, as well as creating difference in these markets through branding.

The second notion that seemed to strike a chord was the need for HR to be the guardians of 'authenticity' in employer branding. Employer brands which aren't rooted in what really matters to employees and potential employees are unlikely to be effective. Indeed, these top-down 'designed' brands are more capable of creating cynicism through perceived attempts at 'brandwashing' and dissappointment among employees through overpromising and underdelivering. One of the lessons is that HR needs to drive employer branding to prevent it being dominated by corporate communcations and marketing, functions which often struggle with the notion of bottom-up design or co-creation.

This issue raised an important discussion around segmentation: should and can organizations tailor EVPs to segments, and on what basis should we construct segments? Among the many interesting discussions we had on this topic were ones related to how far you go with segmentation and how do you relate segments to high performance, and to what extent do you privilege the 'global' over the 'local'. A number of organizations have begun to segment their employer branding on the basis of lifestyles, but do EVPs that appeal to lifestyles produce significant benefits for organizations? Also some organizations are wrestling with the problem that idenity and employer branding are essentially local phenomena, yet organizations seek to impose and privilege the corporate brand over the local brand (perhaps reflecting the dominance of marketing and comms). Is this the right way around for employer brands in frequently culturally diverse businesses? Or should we go for the equivalent of endorsed branding strategy, which is sometimes used in customer-facing corporate branding? Again, context is all important; there is no 'one best way'.

A third issue was the role of leadership and its impact on branding. It was clear from discussions that the idea of leadership branding was seen as an integral part of employer branding. Either because leaders have an important influence on the reality of employer branding through their actions in 'walking the talk' or other wise, or because we expect them to, the reality is that leaders (and recruiters) really matter in how people externally and internally experience employer branding. So, should employer branding always incorporate leadership branding?

A fourth issue was measurement. Very little is done in this direction, though for nearly all participants measurement is an absolutely critical issue in making a business case and in evaluating effectiveness. So, we had a lot of discussion around the notion of how to measure employer brand equity through psychological contracting, surfacing images, brand awareness, and some of the more conventional recruitment and retention metrics. For employer branding to really take-off (and for HR credibility), measurement has to be a lot more effective than has hitherto been the case, even allowing for the fact that what is measurable isn't always meaningful and the value of intangible assets.

A fifth issue was the importance and use of the term, Gen Y, which is more widely discussed in Australia than it seems to be in the UK (where the demographic problem is more about managing an ageing workforce). As we have pointed out in recent publications and will do in our forthcoming report for the CIPD on Web 2.0, Gen Y is a crude term than may do more damage that good. The problem seems to be associated with the 'fallacy of misplaced concreteness', in which shorthand labelling (of often diverse groups) begins to have real consequences; the more we think of the younger age groups as Gen Y, the more we treat them uniformally as Gen Y, despite the wide variation of lifestyle and behavioural differences within this group. So, do we need to be a bit more sophisticated in our research?

Employer Branding in a Recession

I'm increasingly being asked to comment on the need for employer branding in the current economic circumstances? Just how relevant is it when the context for the 'war for talent' has changed? So here's my take on this.

Prediction in an increasingly unknowable world is fraught with problems, as books like the Black Swan point out. I'm not trying to play the recession down because for many people and industries, it is - and will become - very severe. However, there are a few longer term trends which seem to suggest that employer branding may become even more relevant than before.

The first point to note is that employer branding is not just, or even mainly, about attracting new talent but is also about engaging, motivating and retaining existing talent. And these processes are subject to the same kinds of dynamic expectations among employees that I noted in the last post. Most of the good evidence on engagement suggests that organizations in general are not getting any better at this, despite the enormous investment in ever more sophisticated HR techniques. In part, I suspect that this is because these self-same HR techniques and the promotion of so-called best practices are leading to a ratcheting-up of expectations by employees of what constitutes a good employer. The more exployers are drawn into branding, the more the ideal standards they promote influence minimum standards of legitimacy in this field. This ratcheting-up influence is likely to become even more exaggerated as evidence on the ideal standards among prominent firms in the 'employer of choice' game become seen as the norm as a consequence of heavy promotion in the business media. So the criteria for what may have been seen as an employer of choice a number of years ago becomes the the necessary table stakes, even in a recessionary context.

Second, demographics worldwide point to ageing populations, decreasing numbers of young people entering the labour force and changing expectations among those young people that do. These three demogrpahic trends may well be shaped by recessionary economics but suggest talent wars will not diminish in the medium to long term, so organisations that ignore them will only succeed in storing up problems for themselves by neglecting their external and internal images as employers.

Third, in every recession I have experienced over the last thirty or so years, there has always been a shortage of talented people in certain occupations, and the knowledge-intensive nature of industry and competition in developed (and, increasingly, developing) economies will just add to that problem. As intangible assets become an ever more important strategic driver for organizations, so -called talent wars are unlikely to diminish (which is evidenced by current reluctance among financial services to give up their much maligned bonus practices, one of the probable causes of their current problems - see a case we wrote in 2005 on 'The Financial Services Industry: Unfit for the Future' in our Corporate Reputations Book).

So, I'm not saying that the recession will have little impact - of course it will. However, organizations that have invested in employer branding should continue to do so, and those that haven't may need to think hard about how they compete in labour markets that are affected directly and indirectly by demographics, knowledge-intensity and ratcheting expectations.

Corporate reputations, images and identity: how theory can help practitioners

I’m just about to begin a two-week stint running some courses and doing presentations on HR’s contribution to branding and reputation management in Australia and China. As always, I’m on the lookout for interesting material from academics to help me provide some insights into these important topics; hanging around airports and spending time on long plane journeys gives you plenty of time to do just that. So I brought with me the new edition of the Corporate Reputation Review (Volume 11, number3 for those interested). This special edition brings together leading people in the field of organizational identity to write about their emerging frameworks and data. In this increasingly arcane field, this special edition produces some gems. Though the papers are difficult to decipher, even for academics versed in the language of social identity and social actor theory, they yield some blindingly obvious-in-retrospect insights that cause me to re-think some of my ideas on employer branding, some research and consulting work we are doing in the field of employees’ images of healthcare organizations, and the nature of the HR.

The first is an examination of the well-worn distinction in the literature on reputation management between organizations’ needs to be simultaneously different and legitimate in terms of their organizational identities, the characteristics of which are their central, enduring and distinctive attributes (CEDs). Brayden King and Dave Whetten (the latter always a great bet for new insights) suggest that this ‘paradox of identity’ can be thought of in a rather different way than has hitherto been the case. Traditionally, this tension has been seen in terms of organizations attempting to solve seemingly incompatible needs for being different (i.e. branded) from competitors in product and labour markets but also being similar (social legitimate) to their comparators (e.g. being socially responsible, adhering to legal and governance standards, etc).
King and Whetten’s insight – rather obvious when you think about it - is that these needs are linked by the notion of ‘accountability standards’, which define norms of both appropriate behaviour (legitimacy) and esteemed performance (reputation).

Thus, when an organization seeks to become or remain a member of a business/ industry category, say a healthcare provider, it has to meet the minimum expectations of external and internal ‘audiences’ for patient care and the delivery of public value – the necessary, legitimacy-based conditions for membership. However, to become an esteemed member, it has to meet the ideal or aspirational standards of that group of businesses/ industry (reputation). The two, of course, are linked in the form of a continuum from minimum standards to ideal standards. And, because they are linked, changes in one have an impact on the other and vice versa. So, for example, as our expectations of the minimum standards of an employer change in relation to what might be expected, say, of an ‘employer of choice’, this leads to a ratcheting-up of our expectations of the ideal standards of an employer of choice - in other words, employer branding becomes a moving target. Similarly, as organizations compete harder to become employers of choice, such competition leads to a ratcheting-up of minimum standards. The probable results of this last dynamic is that the previously held ideal of an employer of choice becomes the the minimum table stakes, because audiences focus on, and increasingly use as their benchmarks, these prominent players in their industry and exclude reference to others.

Applying this line of thinking to the legitimacy and reputation of the HR function itself, you might be better able to understand how excellence in HR is no longer just associated with meeting the standards associated with cost control and service delivery to internal stakeholders, its two traditional and necessary functions (see Martin, Reddington and Alexander, 2008). Nor, we argue, is it good enough for HR to meet the aspirations of being ‘strategic’ (i.e. to contribute to corporate needs for innovation, customer satisfaction, productivity through high performance work systems, etc) , which has now become the prototypical expectation for HR excellence. Instead, HR needs to focus on the long term reputation and legitimacy of the organization itself by contributing to corporate branding, corporate governance and risk management, corporate social responsibility and ethics, and the creation of intellectual capital. These are all intangible assets, which, according to the well-known economist John Kay (2005), are the reason ‘why some nations are rich and others remain poor’.

The downside of this process, however, is that the market and competition over organizational and even professional identities leads to ever more risky behaviour, in much the same way that competition in financial services has seen firms develop riskier products and riskier HR strategies (talent management and bonuses). What will HR need to do next to help organizations become an employer of choice, and to become a function that rates high in the credibility stakes with CEOs?

The second article is by Kristin Price (who tragically died recently) and Dennis Gioia, both of whom featured in a recent blog. This time, their specific contribution is to raise the question: how can organisations improve their images in the marketplace for images – that is, among customers, employees, the media, prospective employees, shareholders, governments and the like? Building on their previous work on the notion of organizations having multiple, intended and unintended images, they propose the notion of the self monitoring organization. This concept is borrowed from the literature on individual differences. So just as high self monitoring individuals have to be vigilant about the multiple images of themselves (their own self concept, professional images, family members’ images etc), so high self monitoring organisations use a range of strategies and individuals to further the organization’s interests in reconciling self image with others’ images (the press, employees, prospective employees, shareholders, etc). Most of these are well known – brand ambassadors or even bloggers who are high in self-monitoring and become the eyes and ears of the organization, newcomers not yet socialised into the system, boundary spanning functions such as marketing, communications and, yes, and outward looking HR function, social networking and leadership liaison functions, which interact with outsiders, etc.

Two critical points emerge from this paper. The first is to expect multiple images in organisations and leadership difficulties in understanding them, especially if they aren’t high self monitoring as a group. The second is the problem of managing organizations with purposively different intended images, for example, a merger between two quite different companies even in the same industry. Both of these problems can be solved, to a degree at least, if organizations become high in self monitoring. As an afterthought, it in self-monitoring that Web 2.0 can make an enormous impact in helping act as the eyes and ears of the organization – another connection between technology and branding.

Employer Branding and Reputation Management in China and Glasgow's Supporting Role

In this week's Economist there are a number of stories highlighting the importance of branding and reputation management in China, some of it centred on the Olympics and some on the increasing need for Chinese companies to develop strategies based on branded goods and services that can be sold to the West. The available evidence also points to the need for many of the top Chinese companies to be able to compete more effectively in labour markets to attract and retain talented people to support branding strategies. So it comes as no surprise to see the establishment of a similar centre to our own being established in China, and we are pleased to announce that we have signed a memorandum of understanding to set up a co-branded Peking-Glasgow International Research Centre for Employer Brand and Reputation Management. This is to be based at Peking University, with Dr Hong Zhang (from Glasgow) and Professor Wang Hansheng from Peking University as co-directors. The relationship is to be strengthened by forming a partnership with the Zhaopin company, a leading Chinese recruitment consulting firm, and CCTV's China Best Employer Programme.

The aim of this new centre is to undertake research into employer branding and reputation management, and to examine the relationship between HR and branding. I will be helping launch the Centre with a presentation at Peking University in November of this year, and will be helping to put together an international conference on employer branding at Peking University in 2009.

We would be pleased to hear from anyone who may have something to contribute to this conference, so please take the time to email us with your ideas.

Leadership Branding

Julie Hodges from Durham University and I are exploring the use of Ulrich and Smallwood's introduction of the term, 'leadership branding' into HR. For those not familiar with the notion, it focuses on how an organization wants to position its leadership and governance idenity with customers, investors, media and, importantly, employees. Julie has been exploring the use of leadership branding in a piece of action research with a major multinational and we are in the process of writing this work up for publication (suitably anonymised).

We are interested in hearing from anyone who has experience of leadership branding, either as having been involved in the design and implementation phase or as an employee? What was your experience? Or, it this just another brand extension too far?