Talent Management or Brand Management? March 29, 2007
Posted by impassioned in Brand Management, Leadership, Talent Management.trackback
In my professional capacity I operate in the field of Marketing and Business Development, helping the organisation establish and grow its brand presence and convert prospects to advocates. Why then, some might ask, am I speaking/writing about employee engagement, recruitment and retention issues and other such stuff? Surely these are HR topics and belong to the realm of human capital experts? But not so. These topics are critical to everyone wishing for the success and longevity of an organisation, and with brand equity increasingly becoming the domain of the CEO, it is vital that everyone plays a part in creating and sustaining an impassioned workforce.
The corporate brand is only as strong as the company’s ability to deliver on the brand promise and to craft meaningful customer experiences. Any and every employee who interfaces with the customer is part of the branding, ergo the value-building process. In fact, every employee in the company who doesn’t interact with the customer is part of crafting the overall corporate brand, as well, since their job performance has a direct impact on the company’s product or service offerings and its public perception. This impact can be good or bad.
The effects of employee engagement or disenchantment with an organisation can have dramatic impact on its ability to grow. Just as an unhappy customer can spread the word to many connections, so can a dissatisfied employee. And sometimes its the quietly disappointed that are the most dangerous. They have disengaged but are still occupying a seat on the bus; lurking but not really helping progression. Engaged employees don’t just make for a happier work environment, they are essential to the expression of the brand and a critical component of brand management. For brand management to be fully realised, HR and Marketing personnel need to work together to ensure consistency.
[...] The Impassioned Workforce: Talent Management or Brand Management? “Surely these are HR topics and belong to the realm of human capital experts? But not so. These topics are critical to everyone wishing for the success and longevity of an organisation, and with brand equity increasingly becoming the domain of the CEO, it is vital that everyone plays a part in creating and sustaining an impassioned workforce.” Friday, March 30th, 2007 [...]
Gabriella:
You say, “For brand management to be fully realised, HR and Marketing personnel need to work together to ensure consistency.”
In the context of Ted Mininni’s quote are you saying then that employer and product/corporate branding have more in common than distinguishes them and that marketing people have an appreciation then — by default — of things like recruitment communication and talent-centric marketing? Are you saying that corporate and employer branding are “indistinguishable” and “inseparable?”
Thought-provoking post.
Hi Amitai
Thanks for your question – equally thought provoking. I think that employer brand and product/corporate brand MUST be cut from the same cloth, distinguishable only by the nature of their target audience, tone and delivery method but not by meaning. After all, a brand is simply a promise of value to be delivered, and for external branding to carry a credible and deliverable promise employees must recognise themselves and the organisation they see around them.
Do marketing people have an inherent appreciation of recruitment communication and talent-centric marketing – no – not by default – but they should be working with HR to view employees (both current and perspective) as another market segment that they must both appeal to and communicate with. HR can provide marketing with a greater understanding of the needs and motivations of employees and marketing can help HR to communicate their employer message effectively.
In this way the brand is both created and perpetuated by a stronger ties between HR and Marketing.
Gabriella: I am in a rush and haven’t read your reply but I will and will reply in return.
I actually came here to leave you this, posted today on John Sumser’s site. You may have already seen it and found it interesting perhaps but your other readers might find it interesting too:
Brands that matter, here: http://www.interbiznet.com/ern/archives/070615.html
To my last and yours…
>>> I think that employer brand and product/corporate brand MUST be cut from the same cloth, distinguishable only by the nature of their target audience, tone and delivery method but not by meaning.
Hmmm…that suggests that employer brand can be manipulated and controlled in the same was a product branding can. I don’t know.
Coca Cola has a distinctive product brand that has hardly changed over the years. The marketing of that brand has changed by the product’s “brand essence” has hardly budged. In contrast the company’s employment brand has changed dramatically in recent years, even to its subset of diversity and college recruiting and stuff like that. Driven by a disparity of labor supply and demand the employer brand must adapt to changing conditions which may not necessarily be reflected in the changing environment for the employer’s product and services.
I think we need to get to the bottom of this employer/product brand tussle — in my mind at least — which is rooted in the broader context of corporate identity, manifested in three ways:
a) In the organization’s products and services — what is sold or produced.
b) The markets — where what is produced and where it is sold
c) Communications — how all that stuff is explained.
To the extent that all that these things are true for product and employer branding — internal and external audiences — I agree they all need to be cut from the same cloth but they are very different “uniforms” being tailored here, don’t you think?
I would be silly to suggest that there should not be consistency in purpose for all this but to the original point — not all branding is good branding nor is talent management directly or indirectly affected by all — or the sum — of it. IMHO anyway