HR

Rethinking brand

Posted on by Blog

The passing years have seen countless arguments about the distinctions (or lack of them) between consumer, corporate and employer brands. From my early days of working with branding, nearly twenty years ago, to now a lot of the same conversations and debates have persisted.

Are they the same?
Who should own them?
Are marketing and HR broadly the same thing?

I’ve written before about a lot of the differences, but on the question of brand I think there is a really interesting development;

Particularly that consumer brands are becoming more like employer brands.

It is a curious thing, because over the last couple of decades, the mantra has been that employer brands couldn’t exist on their own and they needed to instead be incorporated in to the consumer offering. Marketing teams swept down to envelop all before them and to start to focus on how they could sell jobs – in the same way that they wanted to sell toasters.

But, of course, what those of us knew who had spent time working in employer branding, was that you weren’t trying to persuade, you were trying to explain. You were aiming to build trust, mutuality of respect and joint exploration of value.

In other words, you weren’t interested directly in the sale, but the relationship.

As trust in companies has fallen, as advertising has become less about show and more about connect – marketing departments have had to realign their approach to their brand be more individually focused. You can see the plethora of articles on the topic.

Which of course is the heart of good talent management and good talent acquisition.

But like some weird 80s hangover from drinking the marketing Kool Aid, too many HR people are professing alignment without really understanding the what, the how and the why. I suspect it goes back to the deep hearted roots of wanting to appear commercial, simply by agreeing.

We shouldn’t be afraid of what we know, we shouldn’t be afraid of what we can contribute and bring. What makes any company a good employer will be different to what makes it a good commercial “partner”. There will be overlap, sure, but to conflate the two is dangerous for both.

There are countless examples of amazing consumer brands that are horrible employers and “challenged” consumer brands that are great employers (I’ve worked for some of them!). Put simply, the motivations, aspirations and expectations that we have as consumers are different to those that we have as employees.

That’s why they are, and never will, be the same.

5 interview questions that you’re asking (but probably shouldn’t)

Posted on by Blog

1) Where would you like to be in five/ten years’ time?

Nothing says, “tell me a bag of lies” like this question. Given the chance to answer honestly, most of us would probably say, “on a beach, having won the lottery, without the need to work for any other sucker, ever again”. Instead we say, “I’d like to think my career would have progressed, that I’ve taken on more responsibility and I’m well respected by my colleagues” or if we think we are uniquely funny, “sat on the other side of this table”. *Groan*

Possible alternative question: How do you see this role fitting in to your overall career? What else would you like to do/achieve in your life?

2) If I were to ask your current colleagues what they thought about you, what would they say?

If you really want to know, why don’t you ask them? Because if you ask me, I’m going to tell you that I’m a good team player, I’m well respected and that I have a good sense of humour. In addition, my mother also loves me – but you don’t need to know that either. I get what we are trying to do with this question, but if you’re a sociopathic lunatic, singularly hated by your peers, you’re not going to say that. Are you?

Possible alternative question: How do you go about getting feedback from others? What have you learnt?

3) What are your weaknesses/areas for development?

The Catch 22 question which begs the obvious answer – “I’m a perfectionist”. Are you? Or have you just rehearsed the most clichéd response to the most cliched question ever? Again we’re just asking for a lot of hot air and nonsense, which will give us very little to differentiate the candidates with. If you’re really interested in finding out, try asking them what they’re currently working to improve and how. Try answering perfectionism to that one….

Possible alternative question: What are you working on improving at the moment? What would you like to be better at?

4) How do you handle conflict in the work place?

Let’s go Pinocchio! Are you the ostrich that buries their head in the sand? Or the sewer rat that likes to undermine colleagues in a silent but deadly manner? You’re going to tell me now that I’ve asked the question, aren’t you? You were just waiting for the opportunity to spill your guts on the darkest aspects of your psyche and here is the moment, right now, in the middle of an interview, in front of people who you want to impress. Where else could be more perfect?

Possible alternative question: When have you experienced a situation where there has been conflict between colleagues at work? How did you feel about it? Why?

5) Why did you apply for this specific role?

I have to admit to being guilty of variations on this one (I’m not perfect, ask my mum), but really what on earth am I expecting to learn that would help me differentiate between two candidates? What evidence could I possibly elicit that would be helpful to me in making a choice on who to recruit? This is a classic example of recruiter vanity – I want you to tell me how wonderful we are, how we are the company for you….tell me you love me.

Possible alternative question: Which aspects of this job are particularly appealing to you? Which elements would be the biggest stretch? Why?

Give yourself a chance

Posted on by Blog

How many times have you heard, “I’m not very good at” or listened to yourself say the same? Our ability to artfully segment activities in to “the things we can do” and “the things we can’t do” is legendary.

But how do we really know?

To give you an example, let’s say that I’m tasked with cooking a meal for a group of friends. I don’t normally cook, but for circumstances beyond my control I”m left to do so. I have the ingredients, I have the recipe, I have the cooker and the utensils. When everyone turns up on the saturday night to a pile of ill-determined, semi-burnt mush, I look at the evidence and declare, “I can’t cook”.

And from there on, I have the belief that this is an activity that I cannot perform.

I use cooking as a simple example, but what about maths, finance, presentations or public speaking? How often do we hear people declare in the workplace that they can’t do these things? And on what basis do they hold that belief?

What if instead we were to hold the belief that we could do anything? Well, anything biologically possible for a start. But rather than being about ability, instead we choose where we want to put our time, energy and effort? What if we were to accept that people had almost unlimited potential, just limited resource?

“I can cook. I just haven’t put the practice in to become good at it.”
“I can do numbers, I just haven’t had the exposure and I don’t really have the inclination.”
“I can speak in public, but I have to get used to handling the fear that comes with standing on stage.”

Ultimately, what we can and can’t do, comes down broadly to the things we want to invest in and the things we don’t. If we find that we also have an aptitude, that investment feels simple. If it is the opposite, sometimes the investment can feel too much.

The simple truth is that we choose the elements where we want competence or even mastery and we eschew those that we feel are a step too far. That choice is important in helping us come to terms with the essence of self determination and in turn how we manage and interact with those around us.

So next time you hear yourself professing that “you can’t”, instead try asking yourself how hard you’ve tried.

Barrels of water & impenetrable cultures

Posted on by Blog

In Tours in France, there is a beautiful medieval square called the Place Plumereau, now the home to multiple bars and restaurants. As a thriving spot, it offers employment opportunities, pouring drinks, serving tables, preparing food. The employees get to know one another, many of them working there for years and forming tight bonds. It is also the place a lot of young, and often needy, people go to get their first job.

Anyone who has ever learnt to work behind a bar knows that, regardless of how much time you’ve spent on the other side, it takes a little time to get to know the ropes. The disorientation, vulnerability and willingness that comes with learning , allows the experienced to test the new comers.

As the bars start to fill in the early evening and the customers start to line up, one of the experienced staff will turn to a new starter and declare that they’re all going to be in trouble, there’s a real problem, they’ve run out of water. Could they go and see whether one of the other bars will loan them a barrel of water?

The quickly go to the first bar, but unfortunately they’ve also run out, they suggest the next one to try. But again, no luck, they have just enough for the evening. The poor new employee, getting increasingly panicked and red in the face is sent from pillar to post, from bar to bar with a promise that if they just try one more, they’ll surely find the answer there.

And of course, there are no barrels of water. The water comes out of the taps in the same way that it does in their home. The victim is part of an initiation, a joke that is played, in one variation or another, on countless employees trying to show willing just to “fit in”.

This is a simple manifestation of the impenetrable culture that exists in so many of our organisations. Where we challenge people to complete pointless tasks to demonstrate their commitment to and compatibility with the organisation. At the worst extremes it is expressed by borderline discriminatory behaviour, but more usually by more benign, but equally thoughtless behaviour designed to test “fit”.

No matter how hard the individual tries, no matter the efforts that they put in, the end only comes when one of the established decides they’ve shown enough to end the game and allow the individual to join the ranks, or instead they become so frustrated and despondent that they decide to leave – regardless of the cost to themselves.

It may not be a barrel of water, it might be “understanding the business”, or “being more part of the team”, it could be the need to be “more vocal, visible or present”. Ultimately we place the same challenges on people, day in and day out, without really understanding the measures of success, other than receiving our acceptance. And although different, they are equally fictitious and pointless, testing nothing but perseverance and willingness to endure. Which of course, has absolutely no relevance to anything meaningful in the context of the organisation. Not even the ability to pour a beer.