This report highlights the rising awareness for the development of Employer Branding concept and its benefits for the organisations in present competitive labour market.

University Degree Business and Administrative studies

PEOPLE RESOURCING

MHR-M-154

UNIT LEADER: DENISE BAGLEY

Faculty of Business, Computing and Information Management

Year & Semester: 2nd Semester 2009

Student Details

Name: Sinthia A Nova

Course: MSc International Human Resource Management

ID: 2724881

Words: 2976.

EMPLOYER BRANDING

Contents

Terms of references

This report highlights the rising awareness for the development of Employer Branding concept and its benefits for the organisations in present competitive labour market. The conflict between effective employer branding and employees’ rights and satisfaction toward organization has been examined in this report with specific focus on the unethical and controlling effect.

Introduction

Employer branding is the perception of employees’ about an organization as a place to work. It’s designed for motivating and securing employee’s alignment with the vision and values of the organizations. From the HR perspective the concept was subsumed the older term INTERNAL BRANDING that was essentially the process of communicating an organization’s brand value to its employee.

Employer branding

The concept of EMPLOYER BRANDING was created in the 1990s by Simon Barrow, who founded People in Business (now part of TMP Worldwide) and was the co-author of The Employer Brand. In the past, Barrow had been a consumer goods brand manager and headed up an advertising agency in London, but later became the chief executive of a recruitment agency. He was immediately struck by the similarities between the challenges faced in promoting consumer goods and in publicising the strengths of an organisation’s employee proposition. Both, he recognised, required a strong brand, and so the concept of employer branding was conceived. He defined employer branding as a set of attributes which make the employees feel more close to the company and take pride of being associated with the company they work for. Employer branding is in essence the mental setup of an employee where he or she receives mental satisfaction in the same manner as when he or she uses a product of a preferred brand.

Employer branding is therefore a set of attitudes, as well as an array of activities and features enabling the process of branding to be more effective. They could be psychological (behaviour of superiors), economic (compensation package, benefits) or functional (potential to grow, job assigned according to capability).

These definitions indicate that employer branding means promoting and building an identity and a clear view of what makes an organization different and desirable as an employer. It has similarities with product and corporate branding but the key difference is its’ more employment specific.

Recruitment and employer branding

Developing an employer brand is a combination of adopting vision, values, and behaviours, and delivering a service that shows commitment to best practice and service excellence. It begins with the recruitment process that offers number of tools that can be used to create perceptions of an employing organization, these tools are:

Job advertisement and description
Interview process
Offer letters
Information pack for new recruiters
Employee handbooks
Induction and training.

The recruitment process is an important way to build a positive relationship between the organization and employee. Throughout the procedure, the organization can create a strong and positive view about them; even it can be extended to unsuccessful candidates as well.

Employees eventually become the brand ambassadors and the envoys of the company if the brand image is greeted with enthusiasm, and they start believing in it. In that light, any corporate image that is deemed contrary to the practises, or sounds contrived will not result in such effect and in most cases will be futilr or even counter productive.

Benefits of Employer Branding

Long-term impact: Successful employer brand can have a positive impact on recruiting for a considerable amount of time while considering any Major PR issues.

Increased volume of spontaneous candidates: The number of applicants tends to increase each year as the employer branding gets stronger. Cases of a 500% increase of applications have also been observed.

Password

Confirm Password

I agree to the terms of service and privacy policy

Increase in quality of the applicants: The quality of candidates will also improve dramatically; individuals who never would have considered in the past will start applying.

Higher offer-acceptance rates: The rate of acceptance increase proportionately with the increase of image and goodwill of the company.

Higher Employee Motivation: Employees can be easily motivated, or will stay motivated longer in the company because of the perceived pride in working for the company, and better management practices (generally) that is tied-in with the company’s brand image, thus making it a company people work for ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

Increase in quality of the applicants: The quality of candidates will also improve dramatically; individuals who never would have considered in the past will start applying.

Higher offer-acceptance rates: The rate of acceptance increase proportionately with the increase of image and goodwill of the company.

Higher Employee Motivation: Employees can be easily motivated, or will stay motivated longer in the company because of the perceived pride in working for the company, and better management practices (generally) that is tied-in with the company’s brand image, thus making it a company people work for because they chose.

A stronger corporate culture: Employment branding can help strengthen firm’s corporate culture because of the inertia it gains from the very essence of employer branding; making a company desirable to work for.

Diminished negative publicity and image: Effective branding can pinpoint problems by dealing with negative comments and preparing effective counter measurers.

Increased manager satisfaction: As a direct result of increased interest from more able and proficient applicants, the managers will have more time for managerial functions as the demand to devote more time to recruitment process will decrease with the quality of the applicant group.

Healthy competition: Employer branding is similar to product branding. Hence to keep a company desirable, it has to update its UPS and keep up with its promise of delivery. This increases healthy competition and also makes the companies better by the minute.

Increased shareholder value: The ripple effect of the company’s goodwill via employer branding can also positively impact a firm's stock price.

Support for the product brand: If a company has a brilliant brand image, it is more likely that its product will reap the benefits of it and be branded automatically. This helps especially when the company launches a new product.

Nowadays the importance of employer branding has reached to a point where the product branding and the employer branding are done together in an integrated market approach. Ideally this means that the company lives, breathes and talks like they sell.

‘Living the brand’

LIVING THE BRAND is identifying with an organizations brand value to such an extent that employees’ behaviours fit exactly to the image that the business is trying to portray to its customers (Alan Price 2007). The alignment between employees’ behaviour and value of organization’s brand image is very important. It is suggested that organisations need to ensure that there is no gap between what the organisation is saying in the outside world and what people believe inside the business. The employees should be perceived as Brand ambassador and brand marketing would only be successful if they LIVE THE BRAND.

From this perspective:

Organizations have encouraged employees to “buy in” to the business vision and values.
They have to ensure that everyone in the organization clearly understand the purpose of the common set of values.

According to Ind (2004), the themes discussed are likely to be of interest to HR and marketing practitioners as well as those involved in internal communications within organisations. Employees themselves are expected to internalise features and aspects of the organisation's brand to ensure that they become brand champions, thus helping to represent to organisation's brand to the outside customers. Such an approach immediately raises some interesting problems relating to equality and diversity as it expects each employee to share a particular set of values and act in accordance with these values.

The employee branding approach being recommended by Ind raises a number of challenges for those interested in an equality and diversity agenda. An organisation that aims to ensure that employees are living the brand will specifically aim to attract and recruit employees who already share the values of the corporate brand. Furthermore, those already employed within the organisation will be encouraged to internalise the values of the organisation. Clearly, there are problems for encouraging diversity here, with one of the principles of diversity management being an acceptance and recognition that people are different and individual differences (especially of values) should be welcomed. Inherently, a living the brand focus is likely to go against such a principle. Ind makes the point that encouraging employee identification and commitment to the organisation's brand values might deny an expression of individuality. However, Ind suggests that internal branding combined with allowing employees to be empowered will enable freedom with order.

Denial of individuality (dress code policy)

Many employers are realising a growing need for a standard code of employee dresses that goes hand in hand with the company’s branding. These standards are deemed critical and therefore a policy should be in place in most organisations.

This is because normally when a customer meets an employee, the employee becomes the company. Therefore he or she has to wear the essence of the company. In other words, he or she should follow a dress code congenial to the brand image of the company. There could also be other benefits as a spin off of such policies, such as:

An atmosphere of teamwork,
Standards in professionalism is upheld and engendered, and
A corporate image is created.

With all of these in mind, the employers are reconsidering dress codes, especially (obviously) where there isn’t any. Attention is now on personal hygiene, as well as dress and grooming. The aim is, as mentioned, to represent the company image even in the attire of an employee.

The dress code can be very sensitive and controversial. Therefore it is imperative that the employers and the management have a good idea about the implications of discrimination dress codes have.

Issues with work place dress codes

In organisations with uniforms, the issues can be more wide ranging. For instance, at the Greater Manchester Police Force, bureaucracy and unwillingness to accept change has hampered the introduction of hijabs for Muslim women.

At Inchcape Fleet Solutions – where all 140 non-senior staffs are provided with polo shirts or blouses branded with the company logo – the style of the uniform does not suit all staff and most "do not like wearing it". This would affect their moods at work and consequently affect their performance.

Complaints of discrimination

Furthermore, a complaint was raised informally by the staff forum of child trust fund provider Family Investments and relates to the fact that women can wear trousers that are not full length, while men cannot. Employees have requested that the company allows shorts to be worn, as long as they are below the knee

Also, in September 2006, a British Airways worker has been suspended and attended an appeal over wearing a cross at work at Heathrow Airport. She claims the suspension is discriminatory, especially since the airline allows Sikh employees to wear traditional iron bangles and Muslim workers to wear headscarves.BA has said it will review its uniform policy in light of the media storm the story has provoked.

Employer branding and discrimination law

There are three areas of discrimination relevant to dress code policy:

1. Sex Discrimination Act 1975

2. Religious or Belief Regulations 2003

3. Disability Discrimination Act 1995.

Sex discrimination and dress codes

Almost any dress code has the potential to be challenged as a dress code that discriminates (usually on the basis of sex). Some of the past examples of dress code that were challenged as discriminatory include women wearing skirts, or men prohibited form not having long hair, and men have to wear ties.

The case of Matthew Thompson who objected to the dress code imposed by the Department for Work & Pensions at his place of work, a job centre in Stockport, can also be a good example. Mr Thompson claimed that the dress code discriminated against male employees as they were told that collar and tie are necessities for them, whereas female employees could wear T-shirts to work. The Employment Tribunal found in favour of Mr Thompson stating that the dress code was discriminatory as the requirement for a tie and a collar was applicable only to the male portion of the office and no similar dress code was applied to women.

From the Thompson case, it became clear that employers should be careful in the way that they draft their dress codes. Employers are not prevented from imposing dress codes that require employees to wear specified items of clothing as long as the code is drafted in such a way as to be even-handed between men and women.

For example, jobs in the City, the current convention is for both men and women to wear suits. The convention is that a man should wear a tie with a suit but the same does not apply to a woman. A dress code requiring a "smart suit" could apply to both sexes but be enforced in a non-discriminatory manner appropriate for each sex.

Religion/belief discrimination and dress codes

A dress code that implies that employees must wear (or must not wear) a dress that goes contrary to their religious beliefs and rules can be deemed as religiously discriminatory. Therefore, if a dress code forbids the usage of any headgear, it might be discriminatory against Sikhs, as they have to wear turbans.

The safest bet to work around these problems is to be as generic as possible in the description, whilst adhering to the company values. Therefore, if a company has a dress code that requires employees to dress smartly with no obscenity and in a manner not offensive to any other employees, it doesn’t cross any religious belief whilst ensuring that a dress code is observed.

In some cases, specific dress code might be imposed where the objective of such a dress code is deemed critical or crucial to the performance. There is an example of a chocolate factory where the employees were not allowed to have a beard for health and safety reasons. It is advised, however, that objectivity or specification in dress codes be avoided as they normally don’t have enough grounds in a court of law.

There are contradictions as to how to determine a person’s views and beliefs. Rastafarianism (which requires the wearing of a hat) is a belief system. However, political beliefs such as patriotism, (wearing a falg as a lapel pin) can be regarded as a belief or a view.

Disability discrimination and dress codes

Employees with temporary or permanent disabilities may not be physically able to comply with dress codes. As an example, an employee with a neck injury will not be able to wear a tie. Ideally the dress code should be drafted in a manner that such circumstantial changes are accommodated within.

In summary, employers should be quite a bit flexible when writing a policy on employee dress or appearance. Reasonable flexibility and sensitivity to the employees’ racial differences should be allowed in the dress code to make employees comfortable and any conflict and law suits, while meeting the Trust standard of Dress code.

This view is echoed by organisations such as Broker Network, which believes that employees should be able to make their own judgments on what is best to wear.

Companies are also rethinking there policy of having a ‘Casual Friday’, mainly because of the fact that they are planning to make the whole week a Casual Friday. Surveys and researches have pointed out that employees opt for more relaxed clothing in workplaces, suggesting that this will increase productivity. Microsoft already has this in place, casual dress being the formal dress code for the company. Many employees also believe that tie is an unnecessary accessory

Conclusion

The issues discussed above create a challenge for HR professionals involved in employee focused branding projects, especially those where employees are expected to share a specific set of values. That is that such initiatives will undoubtedly create a tension and potentially conflict with principles underlying an equality and diversity agenda. Ind's suggestion that inside-out branding allows freedom and order remains unconvincing even when the employees are involved in constructing the brand values. An organisation that dictates a set of values for employees to internalise is still a homogenising force. Organisation's that genuinely take diversity programmes seriously will have to tackle this tension. One possible way out of this conundrum is to include equality and diversity awareness as a key value included in the internal brand proposition.

Recommendations

The dress code should be drafted with scrutiny and foresight. Employers also should have room (or in cases, make room) for variations and deviations from the dress code if deemed necessary for an employee who needs to amend according to his or her religious beliefs, ideally keeping in mind the image of the company.

In the aforementioned case, managers should consult with the employee making the request and find out ways to accommodate them. They can also have a tribunal, presumably to ensure that health and safety issues are seriously considered and the employee is listened to with more empathy rather than focusing on the company image.

Companies should also be aware that when restrictions are applied, that they are not applied just for the sake of it. Therefore if a role is not customer facing, the employees should not be made to wear a collar and tie. And where restrictions are applied, they should be logical and congruent. Therefore a person working in a warehouse should always wear safety boots and hi-visibility jackets, and in this case no deviation (ideally) should be tolerated.

The guidelines should be clear and precise with rationale behind every restriction and code included.

In cases where certain restrictions are applied only to a select few, the explanation for such exclusivity should also be included. Therefore an employee working in a deli counter or in a café will have more restrictions on his or her dress for health and safety reasons, whereas another employee working in the same company but in another department might not have such restrictions.

When a change is made in the dress code, a reasonable time should be allocated for the employees to abide by these amendments. And also, employees should be given a grace period before they can be disciplined for non-compliance.

There should also be a clear explanation of the chain of events (disciplinary, warning, dismissal or the like) that might occur to the employee if they continuously breach the dress code.

There should also be provision for a representative the employee can talk to if they are unable to comply with the dress code completely.

The dress code should be reviewed periodically in accordance to the present set of laws, and updated consequently to accommodate changes that could lead to discrimination if not applied. The staff handbook should also be reviewed with employment lawyers to ensure compliance and proper implementation.

The policies should include rationale that relate directly to the business, making it more understandable for the employees. Therefore the company’s image, goodwill, maintaining a productive work environment and health and safety standards might be included as rationales for a certain set of policies.

Focus should also be on employees appearance and tidiness Even casual dress policies should mention clothing that will be deemed inappropriate (such as sweat suits, shorts, and jeans), especially for employees that deal with customers face to face.

The policies should be communicated properly to all employees of the company via handbooks and notices (when amendments are applied). Ideally, a new starter should also be aware of the policies from day one.

The policy should be applied indiscriminately and without exception to all employees of the company, thus reducing the possibility of allegations of favouritism and discrimination.

Accommodations, however, should be made for special requirements, especially ones that associate with religion. A uniform dress code might be allowed for a change if a woman wants to wear a headscarf to comply with her religious belief.

Focus on discipline of dress code should be maintained regularly. Violators should be disciplined with a reasonable explanation of why such action has been taken, and why their dress is not consistent with the policy.

REFERENCES:

Edwards, M. R. (2008) Employees as a Focus of Branding Activities: A Review of Recent Contributions to the Literature and the Implications for Workplace Diversity, Equal opportunities international. Vol 27(5) pp. 447-481 [online] Available from: www.emerald.com [Accessed 1 April 2009]

Carrington, L (2007) EMPLOYER BRANDING [Online] Available from: http://globaltalentmetrics.com/articles/EB_2007_Brandempl.pdf [Accessed 26 March 2009]

Wolff, C. (2007) EMPLOYERS USE DRESS CODES TO ENHANCE CORPORATE IMAGE, IRS. Issue 878. Available from: http://www.xperthr.co.uk [Accessed 26 March 2009]

Downes, J. (2007) POLICY CLINIC: DRESS CODES, [online] Available from:

http://0-www.xperthr.co.uk.lispac.lsbu.ac.uk/article/81919/policy-clinic--dress-codes.aspx?searchwords=Policy+clinic%3a+Dress+codes [Accessed 26 March 2009]

Millar, M (2006) EMPLOYERS RELAXING WORK DRESS CODE CAN HELP IMPROVE PRODUCTIVITY, [online] Available from: http://www.personneltoday.com/articles/2006/07/26/36558/employers-relaxing-work-dress-code-can-help-improve.html [Accessed 26 March 2009]

Dr. Sullivan, J (2008) EMPLOYMENT BRANDING: THE ONLY LONG-TERM RECRUITING STRATEGY, [online] Available from: http://www.drjohnsullivan.com/content/view/183/27/ [Accessed 26 March 2009]

Stephen Morrall, S & Urquhart, C (2003) SEX DISCRIMINATION - ARE DRESS CODES DISCRIMINATORY? [online] Available from: http://www.drjohnsullivan.com/content/view/183/27/ [Accessed 26 March 2009]

Gronlund, J K (2008) HOW EMPLOYER BRANDINGCAN FOSTER TRUSTS AND LOYALTY? [Online] Available from: http://www.employerbrand.com/Points_pathf.html [Accessed 26 March 2009]